Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CLYWEDOG RFSERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Knightsbridge Barracks (Rebuilding)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the proposed rebuilding of Knightsbridge Barracks; and how soon he expects this work to be put in hand.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): Knightsbridge Barracks is to be demolished and replaced by a new barracks, with some married quarters, for the Household Cavalry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be responsible for this redevelopment. Although considerable preliminary work has already been done, this is a complex and important project, requiring full discussion with the planning authorities, and rebuilding cannot start before 1965.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Has my right hon. Friend seriously considered the possibility of resiting these barracks on the site now occupied by the old Magazine

in Hyde Park? Has he borne in mind the immense value of the present site of the barracks and that it might be more helpful to the Exchequer, apart from anybody else, if the present site were sold and new barracks erected at a place not quite so expensive?

Mr. Profumo: I have carefully considered these and other alternative projects and sites, but I am satisfied that this is the best and right site for this project. At all events, the Knightsbridge site is part of the Royal Parks and its sale for purposes of other development would be precluded by Statute.

Officers (Retired Pay)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War how much retired pay is received by a major who retired on the 1945 code and is now 59 years of age, and by a major who retired yesterday, assuming that both completed maximum service; and how much terminal grant each officer would have received on retirement.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): £475 and £930 per year; none and £2,790.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not apparent from that Answer and from other Answers to similar Questions that the older retired members of the Armed Services of all ranks and their widows are getting a very bad deal compared with those who retire today? Will my hon. Friend take note of the very strong feeling about this matter on both sides of the House, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Ramsden: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I should remind him and the House of two points. When the first major in his example reaches the age of 60, he will get the benefit of pension increases bringing his retired pay to £689 a year. Having retired, as he must have done, at 47 or sooner, such a man could reasonably be expected to supplement his retired pay by having some form of paid employment. That is one of the reasons why 60 has been made the effective age for pensions increases.

Mr. Paget: Does that not equally apply to the man who retires today? Is not this grossly unjust? Are we not at some


time to adopt the principle of the same pension for the same service and not penalise these men because the Government have depreciated the currency?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. and learned Member is always lecturing me about honest money. I do not believe that his own side's record stands up too well in this connection. If he goes on doing so, some rather firmer support for an incomes policy from his side of the House would be welcome.

Bank of England Picquet and Royal Palace Guards

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now discontinue the use of troops for the Bank of England picquet.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he will now take to relieve the Guards and other regiments of duties such as the Bank of England picquet and sentry-go at Royal Palaces during periods when members of the Royal Family are not in residence.

Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied that the security requirement at the Bank of England can best be met by a military guard.
There has recently been a reappraisal of the duties of the picquet to ensure that they are in conformity with modern requirements. Whereas it used to be partially ceremonial, the guard is now a tactical one, both in dress and deployment.
The Governor of the Bank of England has agreed to make a payment to Army Votes for the provision of this guard.
It is the responsibility of the Major-General Commanding the Household Brigade to ensure that the size of guards on Royal Palaces is consistent with security and other requirements. These requirements vary with the presence or absence of members of the Royal Family.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Dealing with the Bank of England picquet only, can my right hon. Friend say, if this is the best method of defending the Bank of England, why it has not been extended to the Royal Mint, for example, where it would also, if this is, be the most effective way of defending such a building, which I very much doubt? Can he say how much is being subscribed by the

Bank of England? Would he not agree that this is not the type of service for which the soldiers were either recruited or trained?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Nonsense.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Finally, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the amount which this picquet costs represents almost exactly the amount which the Government felt unable to provide for kidney research?

Mr. Profumo: The Bank of England is in a somewhat different position from other organisations which my hon. Friend might have in mind. There has always been a military guard at the Bank of England. To take away the military guard at this stage would be wrong. I have had a considerable discussion both with the G.O.C., London District, and the Governor of the Bank of England, and I can answer my hon. Friend by saying that the payment which is now to be paid to my Vote will completely cover the cost of the guard.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman really being serious about this? It is difficult to believe. Does he realise that the Bank picquet involves 114,000 man-hours a year wasted on a meaningless bit of ceremonial? Does it really matter whether the Bank pays a subvention or not? Has not the time come to dispense with these meaningless duties and burdens which are imposed on highly trained manpower which is supposed to be part of our strategic reserve?

Mr. Profumo: As is frequently the case, the hon. Member is not entirely accurate. I do not accept his figures about the man-hours per year. Secondly, I have just told the House that there has been a reappraisal of the duties, and I am absolutely satisfied that the duties of the guard as a tactical guard are right and proper for a military organisation. London District soldiers have always combined their training as some of the best soldiers in the world with a lot of ceremonial and other public duties. The ceremonial side of this picquet has been cut out altogether. It is now a tactical guard and, as I say, I do not believe that it should be done by any other method.

Mr. Strachey: Arising from the Secretary of State's original Answer, in which he said that he was satisfied that this


was the best security arrangement for the Bank of England, would he agree that this is well up to the Government's genera} standards of security arrangements?

Mr. Profumo: I certainly do. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman try to break into the Bank of England and see what happens. I give him good warning that, although he has been a Secretary of State himself and at that time never suggested moving the Bank of England guard, he will get very short shrift if he tries to get in.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not obvious that the reason the right hon. Gentleman retains a military picquet is his concern for a nationalised concern?

Mr. Profumo: I agree that a private undertaking might be able to look after itself. However, I am convinced that this is the right thing to do and that it is in the national interest.

Private Walter Drinkwater

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the special factors in the case, he will now recommend the early release of Private Walter Drinkwater, of Salford, from Wormwood Scrubs, where he is serving a three years' sentence by court-martial after an incident at Hilden Camp, Germany.

Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: In the light of the Pirbright affair, how can the Minister justify this savage sentence on a soldier with a first-class record for what was clearly an unpremeditated clash with a drunken sergeant in the N.A.F.F.I.? Is the Minister aware that Drinkwater's counsel, Brigadier Morrison, said that this was the worst case of man-management that he had seen in 32 years' Army service? Will the Minister use his power to intervene?

Mr. Ramsden: I am unable to accept what the hon. Gentleman said, including his comparison with the Pirbright affair, which involved a different set of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have exchanged several letters about this, and I assure him that all the points he has raised, including some that he raised this afternoon, have been taken into account

either by the court or at subsequent reviews and reconsideration of the finding and sentence.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Dartmoor National Park (Okehampton Range)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the proposed bye-laws for the Okehampton Range in the Dartmoor National Park.

Mr. Ramsden: I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) on 8th April.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Minister whether these proposed byelaws give the Army the power of arrest of ordinary citizens walking through a National Park for the first time, and are the ancient rights of hundreds of venville commoners to be overridden without their consent? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to arrange for a public inquiry to take place before he reaches any decision?

Mr. Ramsden: In reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that there is any need for a public inquiry. We shall answer all the objections that we have received. With regard to the power of arrest, there is such a power, but it will be used only against persistent trespassers. The idea of this power is to safeguard members of the public who might stray into places where dangerous firing is going on.
We have come to agreements with those of the commoners' interests that we could identify, and we shall discuss similar arrangements with any other body of commoners or so-called venville tenants who establish that their rights are prejudiced by the use of this area for training.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not the fact that these byelaws are to be issued show that the area is now really too restricted for modern Army training, and would not it therefore be wise to accede


to the request that has been pressed on my hon. Friend for an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Ramsden: I welcome the opportunity of clearing this up. The area that we propose to use for training and firing is no greater than it has been in the past, notwithstanding the new proposals for byelaws. The byelaws will cover a wider area, but this is to improve arrangements for public safety. It does not involve the wider use of Dartmoor by the Army.

Larkhill Range

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute a control system at Larkhill which will enable the Army to ascertain in future what happens to shells which miss the target area.

Mr. Profumo: To prevent shells landing outside the target area we already take stringent precautions in the loading and laying of the guns. There have recently been two revisions of the standing orders for the range, and I hope that the new orders, which are most comprehensive, will prevent further accidents.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not complaining of his dropping a shell on a neighbouring town? Accidents can happen in the best regulated circles. What I am complaining of is the right hon. Gentleman's incapacity to discover where the shell came from. That seems to argue indifferent range control.

Mr. Profumo: I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman if he were not learned. If he has read the case—and I shall show it to him if he has not—he will know that there was a conflict of evidence and, although the Army thought it knew where the shell came from, the man who watched the shell land gave evidence which was wholly in conflict and we had to believe his evidence.

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for War how many additional men have to be mobilised to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to war establishment; how long this would take; and what training these men undergo.

Mr. Profumo: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the mobilisation strength of the British Army of the Rhine, but I can say that the necessary reinforcement will take place within days. All the reinforcements will be trained men.

Mr. Healey: Without going into details, where there is a legitimate security interest in keeping them secret, is it not the case that to be fully effective operationally B.A.O.R. would have to call up almost as many men as are already serving in Germany, that most of them would have had no training, and that it would take more than a week to get them there? Is this really a satisfactory situation for an Army whose main function is to be able to react immediately to a local thrust by an enemy without recourse to nuclear weapons?

Mr. Profumo: I told the hon. Gentleman that I was not prepared to go into facts and details of how many days and hours it may take, or how many people were required, and I am sure that he will respect this, but our treaty obligations are to maintain in Germany an Army of 55,000 and there has been no suggestion that our plans for reinforcement up to war strength are unsatisfactory, and I maintain that they are satisfactory.

Mr. Healey: Have not we certain obligations to our own commanders and men serving in Germany? Is it fair on these men to expect them to be ready to engage in operations when they know that they are short of desperately needed specialist and other personnel whom it will take more than a week to get there and who will not be trained when they arrive?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept that they will take more than a week to get there. The point is that when the B.A.O.R. is at a strength of 55,000, that is the full peace-time strength. The number of people who would go from this country as reinforcements would be only one-quarter of the people sent there and would in fact initially go to teeth arm units and take their places in formations which would be comprised mainly of Regulars.

Chieftain Tank

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Chieftain tank.

Mr. Ramsden: The trials my right hon. Friend referred to in the debate on Army Estimates on 14th March have been completed and the results are at present being evaluated. Once this has been done, my right hon. Friend hopes that the way will be clear for production to begin.

Mr. Morris: Has not the time come to accelerate the development of this tank? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the statements made each year by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are brilliant exercises in padding? We were told in March of last year that this tank was in the final stage of its proving and use trials. We were then told, in a memorandum published this year, that they would take place within a few weeks. When will this tank be available to the units that need it?

Mr. Ramsden: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. With a complex piece of equipment such as this, it would be a mistake to be in a bad hurry. There are bound to be teething difficulties and snags, and time spent now in clearing them up will certainly make production easier, and avoid difficulties later on.

Recruiting

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on recruiting to the Regular Army and to the Ever-readies.

Mr. Profumo: I dealt very extensively with recruiting to both the Regular Army and the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve in my speech in the Army Estimates debate on 14th March, and I have nothing to add to what I said then.

Mr. Morris: Can we be told what the present target of the Minister is for the Ever-readies? He had wide authority from this House for a ceiling of 15,000 men. Then we were told, in his last speech, that he would not have to go anywhere near that target. What does he want now?

Mr. Profumo: The need for the Ever-readies will vary from year to year. I am not prepared to lay down a ceiling, because it is difficult to say what it should be. At present the strength is just over 4,500. My whole organisation is geared to try to recruit as many more Ever-readies as possible. When we get near to what we regard as a practical ceiling for the time being, I shall reduce recruiting. I am hoping that the exercise now going on in the Far East may bring some realism into the requirement for the Ever-readies, and even stimulate their recruiting.

Meritorious Service Medal (Mr. J. W. Sayer)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for War when Mr. J. W. Sayer of 39 Gordon Road, Beckenham, Kent, who was recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal during World War I and received it in 1952, may expect to receive the gratuity attached to this medal.

Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Sayer is on the roll of Meritorious Service Medal annuitants, and he will receive the £10 annuity in his turn. We are at the moment making awards to men born in 1885, and I would therefore expect Mr. Sayer to receive his in about four years' time.

Mr. Goodhart: Cannot my hon. Friend be a little more generous in this matter? Surely it should now be possible to pay this £10 gratuity to all people who were recommended for this medal in the First World War—forty years ago.

Mr. Ramsden: There is some misunderstanding here. The medal is normally awarded to N.C.O.s in recognition of long and meritorious service, and anyone who was recommended for an annuity on these grounds before the end of the First World War would be receiving it by now. According to my information, Mr. Sayer was not recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal until 1937; it was the Military Medal and Bar which he received in the First World War.

Mr. Paget: Is not this a case for a good rather than a bad heart?

Mr. Ramsden: The present policy was devised in 1950 by the hon. and learned Member's Government, and it has stood up fairly well since.

Court Martial (Major Cory)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to expedite the procedure of appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeals Court.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what compensation he will pay to the officer who completed his sentence by court martial nine months before his innocence was recently established on appeal; and, arising from this case, what action he will now take to improve court martial procedures.

Mr. Profumo: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have already instituted together a searching inquiry into every aspect of the case of Major Cory, including the procedure governing appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which at present depends partly on statute and partly on rules of court.
When our investigations are concluded—and they may take a little time—I will certainly report to the House. I need hardly add that my noble and learned Friend and I are very concerned indeed about this case.
Major Cory has just raised the question of compensation, and this will be considered. He has, of course, been reinstated in the Army and has received his full pay and due allowances from the date of promulgation—22nd January, 1962—to date of reinstatement.

Mr. Allaun: Was it not a shocking travesty of justice that it took seventeen months before Major Cory's case came to appeal, when he was exonerated? Up to that time he had served eight months in gaol and had been out of work for a long time. Is the Minister aware that, similarly, it took eight months before the requests of my constituent, Private Drinkwater, were refused by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, during which time he had been in Wormwood Scrubs? Can the Minister ensure that soldiers, like civilians, will have the right to bail pending appeal?

Mr. Profumo: I could not institute that without fresh legislation. If the hon. Member looks up the debates which took place in this House on the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, he will find that it was decided that before asking for

leave to appeal to the appeal court an objection should be filed with the Secretary of State for War. It was recognised when the Bill was going through the House that it would be possible under the procedure for the presentation of objection to take place at such a late date that the appeal might not be determined before the appellant had served his sentence. I cannot hold out any hope of bail without fresh legislation. We try to do everything within our power to expedite this procedure.

Mr. Lipton: In regard to the first issue raised in connection with this unfortunate case, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking, here and now, that the most substantial recompense, in addition to the restoration of pay and allowances, will be made to this unfortunate victim of what has obviously been a miscarriage of justice? Will he also bear in mind that, in order to avoid the possibility of similar tragedies occurring in future, the House would be quite willing to give him whatever legislative powers are necessary?

Mr. Profumo: I am not sure that I wholly agree that the House would be prepared to grant any powers to avoid this, because it was only in 1956 that the House exhaustively debated the matter and it then expressly denied the granting of these powers. But we shall have a searching examination of the matter. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I cannot give an absolute undertaking at this stage. I have said that I will look into the question of compensation. If the hon. Member will read column 1619 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 29th March, 1954—which deals with a similar case—he will appreciate why it is impossible for me to give a categoric undertaking at this stage.

Sir H. Harrison: It may be the opinion of the House that what has come out of the question of the appeal of this officer is the fact that the court martial was conducted over a long period and in a very unsatisfactory manner. What we would like in future is for my right hon. Friend or some member of the Army Council to be able to call for papers in cases where it is thought that a court martial is not being properly conducted, or has taken too long, as in this case.

Mr. Profumo: I sympathise with my horn, and gallant Friend and other hon. Members in their feelings about this matter. I hope that the House will not press me too far at this stage, because these are just the sorts of things in respect of which my noble and learned Friend and I have called for a thorough and exhaustive examination. The Army Council calls for papers, and we rely on the Judge Advocate General and his advice when we are looking into these cases. In this case there were about 1,400 pages of typescript in the appeal that came to the Army Council.

Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that his statement that there will be a full inquiry into this matter, and that he will make a statement to the House about this astonishing case, as described by the court of appeal, will be regarded as very satisfactory. In addition, however, will he place the transcript of this trial in the Library of the House? This case lasted for 43 days and the accused was in the witness box for more than a week. There are many instances to show that this was a very unsatisfactory trial. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a full inquiry into the matter, and will he also state the reason why the whole of the evidence was taken down in longhand when shorthand writers were available?

Mr. Profumo: I once more give an undertaking that a really exhaustive inquiry will be made into this matter. As for putting a typescript in the Library, I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to wait until we have completed the inquiry, because the report may take the form of some kind of paper. It has not yet been decided whether it will be for my noble and learned Friend or for me to deal with the matter, but we want to get going with the inquiry. It will take some time. Perhaps we can consider this matter afterwards.

2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards (Absences)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the recent absence of a number of Coldstream Guards from Chelsea Barracks.

Mr. Profumo: Some 400 men of the 2nd Battalion, the Coldstream Guards

were given leave at Easter. At 8 a.m. on Easter Tuesday the roll call showed that 26 men were missing. During the course of the day most of these men returned from leave or else reported themselves sick at home, and by the evening only 10 were actually absent without leave. On Friday of last week only 5 men were absent, of whom 3 were missing before Easter. Those men who returned late without good reason have been dealt with by their commanding officer.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is normal or abnormal at Easter compared with previous years? Would he not agree that there is increasing evidence that soldiers—in my view rightly—are objecting more and more strongly to the inordinate amount of "bull" insisted on by commanding officers? Will he set up an all-party committee from this House to go round asking private soldiers what they think about this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members are not willing because they know there will be no result from commanding officers—and ask the commanding officers to use a bit more common sense instead of asking the men to do these quite stupid things?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must once again remind hon. Members of the un-desirability of long supplementary questions.

Mr. Profumo: And, Mr. Speaker, of the undesirability of wild supplementary questions. If I may answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the numbers involved in this case were not exceptional. They amounted to 2 per cent. of the whole battalion being absent after a block issue of leave. With regard to some other accusations made by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Manuel: Compared with other Easters?

Mr. Profumo: The House will forgive me, I have not the details of other Easters. But block leave given over a holiday period of this sort is what matters, and I hope that Easter itself had nothing to do with this.
I am certainly not prepared to institute the sort of inquiry which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not believe that that is the way to deal with the matter. I would much prefer to allow commanding officers, formation commanders and


commanders-in-chief to deal with this matter in the proper way. The action of a small number of trouble-makers in giving stories to the Press about their own units—not always accurate stories—can only bring discredit on the units as a whole, and I have no wish to add to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Infant Mortality

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the infant mortality rate in Scotland is higher than in many other Western European countries, including England and Wales and the Netherlands; and whether he will conduct investigations into this state of affairs.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The Scottish rate is higher than in some Western European countries. It is highest in the industrial areas of the West of Scotland; and Glasgow Corporation is conducting a special analysis, in which my officers are assisting, of the circumstances attending every birth to Glasgow mothers. I will consider sympathetically any further proposals for research into this subject for which my assistance may be required.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the Official Report the figures for Scotland, England, Wales, the Netherlands and other Western European countries in order that we may see the comparisons here? Will he be able to make a further statement at the time of the debate on the Estimates regarding health in Scotland to show what progress is being made in the efforts to find the reasons for the discrepancy?

Mr. Noble: I will circulate the figures in the Official Report. It is unlikely that by the time of the Estimates debates I shall be able to give any results from the inquiry. We shall have to wait for about a year to see how the results come in and what the picture shows.

Mr. T. Fraser: Have not there been numerous inquiries over the last twenty or thiryt years into the cause of the high infant mortality rate in Scotland, and have not the inquiries shown the cause to be the dreadful housing conditions in that part of Scotland to which the

Minister referred, coupled with the inadequacy of the facilities for hospital confinements?

Mr. Noble: Certainly, both those factors have had an obvious influence on the results. I think that what we want to do is to get a little further than just making a general statement. We are doing our best to improve housing and to increase the number of maternity beds.

Following are the comparative figures per thousand live births in 1961, as published in the Registrar General's Annual Report for 1961:


Portugal
…
…
…
89


Poland
…
…
…
54


Hungary
…
…
…
44


Greece
…
…
…
40


Spain
…
…
…
38


Austria
…
…
…
33


Western Germany
…
…
…
32


Eire
…
…
…
31


Japan
…
…
…
29


Northern Ireland
…
…
…
28


Belgium
…
…
…
26


France
…
…
…
26


Scotland
…
…
…
26


Denmark
…
…
…
22


England and Wales
…
…
…
22


Finland
…
…
…
20


New Zealand*
…
…
…
19


Sweden
…
…
…
16


Netherlands
…
…
…
15


* Excluding Maoris

Schools, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received about his proposal to close the demonstration school and other schools in Aberdeen; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Noble: I have received letters from two groups protesting against the decision by the Governors of Aberdeen College of Education to discontinue the demonstration school, and in reply I have explained why I approved the decision. I have also had some 260 letters of protest against Aberdeen Education Committee's proposal to discontinue the primary departments at Aberdeen Grammar School and Aberdeen High School for Girls, a proposal on which I have as yet reached no decision. The letters of protest have been acknowledged.

Mr. Hughes: Would not the Secretary of State agree that these letters represent a large and widespread expression of reasoned opposition to the closure of the demonstration school particularly on the


ground that during its long history it has done very good work; is doing very good work; has attracted good teachers has produced distinguished alumni, and that no adequate reason has been given for the closure of this very distinguished school? Will he, therefore, reconsider his decision to close the demonstration school?

Mr. Noble: I cannot reconsider my decision about the demonstration school. I am convinced that, from the educational point of view, no one in Aberdeen will suffer.

Government Aid

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a comprehensive statement on the recent Government Aid plan for Scotland of £20 million, giving in detail the allocations to be made to each area and the conditions to be complied with in each case.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT: AUTHORISATIONS AND AREAS



£ million



Miscellaneous minor works
2·0
The areas prescribed in S.D.D. Circular 33/1962.


MacBraynes Ferry Ships
1·25
Being built in Aberdeen.


Teacher Training Colleges
1·0
Aberdeen, Bearsden, Edinburgh and Hamilton.


South of Scotland Electricity Board
6·0
Most of this is for strengthening the transmission and distribution networks in the Boards' areas.


North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
0·5


Additional roadworks
2·5
The counties of Ayr, Bute, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Fife, Lanark, Perth and Renfrew.




The burghs of Airdrie, Ayr, Clydebank, Coat-bridge, Dumbarton, Dundee, Dunfermline, Glasgow, Lanark, Hamilton, Kilmarnock, Kirkcaldy, Motherwell, Paisley, Port Glasgow and Rutherglen.


New reservoir for Glasgow Corporation
1·0
Glen Finglas, Perthshire.


Tay Road Bridge
4·5



Dunfermline Gas Turbine Generating Station
1·75




£20·5 million

The bulk of this extra investment is for work to be done in the next two years. The miscellaneous minor works had to be started before 31st March and completed within six months of starting. The additional roadworks have to be ready for start by 1st July, 1963 and be capable of completion by 31st December, 1964.

Diabetics

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the high cost of diabetic foods, he will bring them within the National Health Service, with a view to supplying such foods to diabetics at reduced prices.

Mr. Noble: I have no power to arrange for the supply of foodstuffs under the National Health Service.

Mr. Dempsey: Could not the Secretary of State decide to take such powers in

Mr. Noble: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Will not the Minister tell the House the principles on which he Acts? How does he select the industries which deserve, and are to get, some of these grants? Does he realise that in Aberdeen, and in the north of Scotland generally, there are many industries which offer to produce goods for export and to absorb some of the many unemployed in that region? Will he give the House some indication of his principles?

Mr. Noble: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if it is a question of industries, it is a question for the Board of Trade. The principle behind most of the road works has been to improve roads where they are most needed and where unemployment at the time was worst.

Following are the details:

view of the fact that a jar of diabetic jam costs a diabetic 5s. and a bar of chocolate 2s.? Is not that an exorbitant price for these people to pay when many of them are unable to walk, some can walk only intermittently and others are in the pensioner class? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State did something to solve this problem?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman will realise that to alter the National Health Service in this respect would be to go very much wider than dealing with the


problem of diabetics. I realise that there are hardship cases, and the National Assistance Board is most ready to try to help where this is needed.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that retirement pensioners who are diabetics and who require insulin, hypodermic needles, surgical spirits and cotton wool, pay eight shillings prescription charges; and if he will abolish these charges.

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir, but I have asked the doctors to prescribe for all diabetic patients in as large quantities as possible so that these charges have to be met less frequently.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that in some cases as many as seven items are prescribed, at a cost to the pensioner of 14s.? Is not that an extortionate proportion to take from the retirement pension of an old soul? Will he bear in mind that the National Assistance Board assists only in marginal cases and not in the millions of cases involving people above the marginal line, and will he please do something about it?

Mr. Noble: As I explained in my Answer, we are encouraging doctors to help to solve this problem by prescribing in as large quantities as possible. This provides significant help. I cannot consider abolishing these charges as the hon. Gentleman desires.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that pharmaceutical chemists report that there are a large number of people who have to do without certain items on prescriptions given to them by doctors, because they cannot afford to pay for all the items? Is he aware that they ask chemists what items they can do without in order to cut the cost of the prescription to fit their purse instead of to fit their illness? Is not this a disgraceful way to treat people?

Mr. Noble: I think that this is entirely wrong. If it were necessary, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, people in cases of this sort could bring the matter to his attention, or to my attention, and it could be taken up by the proper authority.

Mr. Ross: Is it not a wasteful practice to ask people to prescribe and others to purchase more than they immediately require in order to save a few shillings?

Would it not be far better to wipe this out altogether?

Mr. Noble: I think the hon. Member has got it wrong. In cases concerning diabetics it is possible for the doctor to foretell with considerable accuracy the amount they are likely to need. By prescribing in larger quantities he is giving a very positive benefit in this field.

School, Helensburgh

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work on the new senior secondary school at Helensburgh to start; and what is the estimated date of completion.

Mr. Noble: Dunbarton Education Authority had hoped to start work on this school in September this year and to complete it by December, 1965. Competing demands of more urgent projects have occasioned some delay, but the project will be authorised as soon as practicable.

Mr. Steele: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to my information, this school is not to start in September, 1963, on the instructions of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is he aware of the long postponement over thirty years in providing this new school? Is he also aware that at the moment this school is unhygienic, primitive and overcrowded and that teaching is going on in ten separate premises scattered about half a mile from the main building? Will he look at the matter again and assure the education department that the starting date will be September, 1963?

Mr. Noble: I have to bear in mind the priorities which local authorities themselves want for schools. If I had "enough money to enable every education department to start all the work it wanted to do immediately, this would be a different problem.

Mr. Steele: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Royal Infirmary, Inverness (Ambulance Facilities)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that an almost totally blind woman from


Castletown, Caithness, has been sent to the Royal Infirmary, Inverness, for an operation and treatment on two occasions, and subsequently to Golspie, Sutherland, for out-patient treatment, without transport being provided for her; if he is aware that Castletown is six miles from the nearest railway station and journeys have to be made from the stations to the hospitals; and if he will take steps to authorise transport by road from door to door for incapacitated persons, free of cost to the patient.

Mr. Noble: In general, where a patient's doctor considers that ambulance facilities are required, the whole cost is met by the Scottish ambulance service. Patients travel by road or rail, whichever is the more suitable. In this case, the medical advice was that the patient did not need ambulance facilities on the earlier journeys. For her last visit to Golspie they were required and a rail journey with an escort and ambulances to link with the train at each end was arranged.
The patient's husband was, however, wrongly informed that he would have to pay the rail fare and he made other arrangements. In the circumstances, I am prepared to reimburse him the amount of the rail fare.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the information he has given to the House is completely at variance with the facts given to me, which I have confirmed in two trunk calls to Castletown in recent days? Is he aware that there is no public transport service from Castletown to connect with a train from Thurso to take the patient to Inverness? Is it not wrong that a woman in the state in which this lady is should be treated in this way? In addition to being partially blind, she is sick and weighs only 5 or 6 stone. This kind of thing will not do. It is making a masquerade of the National Health Service?

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman may well have information which I have not got. On the question of the ambulance services, often the best thing is to have a car to a station for the rail journey and an ambulance from the railhead to the hospital. This is often easier when long rail journeys are concerned, and this we try to do. I am sorry for the mistake about the rail fare.

Mackenzie Committee (Report)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to reach a decision on the Report of the Mackenzie Committee; and if he will expedite this decision to avoid further disruption of new hydro-electricity development in Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a statement on the Mackenzie Report, with particular reference to island supplies.

Mr. Noble: I have nothing to add at present to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 13th March and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on 10th April.

Mr. Hannan: Is it not high time that the Secretary of State had something to add to the replies then given? Is he not aware that since he has responsibility for stopping the schemes, he also has responsibility for holding up development by both boards because of the uncertainty, or does this mean that he is abdicating his authority to the Aims of Industry organisation?

Mr. Noble: Certainly not. I appreciate the need for urgency, and I am doing my best to get the right answer as quickly as I can.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is not his intention, or the Treasury's intention, to strangle the authority of the Hydro-Electric Board by not permitting these schemes to go forward, for that is what will happen if he does not allow this important development? Surely he can convince the Treasury that this is a very stupid short-term view which is sacrificing the long-term advantages of these schemes?

Mr. Noble: The important long-term view must be to get electricity at the right price for Scotland as a whole. I cannot accept the implications of what my hon. Friend says about the Treasury's view and my own.

Mr. Ross: What is holding this up other than the shilly-shallying of the Secretary of State? Is he aware that there are now about sixteen schemes held


up awaiting his authority and the next step rests with him to initiate a public inquiry, if that is necessary? Does he realise that he is making the position of the Hydro-Electric Board quite intolerable and that what the position of supply will be in a few years goodness knows? Does he want the board to go ahead, as was suggested even by the Mackenzie Committee Report in relation to these schemes? Will he take action now?

Mr. Noble: I am perfectly prepared to take action as soon as the correct information and full information is available, but not before.

Special School Children (Bursaries)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that children attending school beyond the statutory age limit are eligible for bursaries, whereas children attending special schools to the age of 16 years are not so eligible; and if he will now seek to amend Section 32(4) of the Education (Scotland) Act so as to rectify this anomaly.

Mr. Noble: I appreciate that older children attending special schools are not eligible for higher school bursaries, and this question will be looked at when there is a suitable opportunity for amending legislation.

Mr. Hannan: If the Government have difficulty in finding time for this, may I have the assurance of the Secretary of State that he will facilitate a Private Member's Bill to end an injustice which has gone on for perhaps too long?

Mr. Noble: The problem is that this would have to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis and not on a Scottish basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because the problem is exactly the same in both countries. I think it would be resented and would be unfair to England if we legislated on a separate basis.

Mr. Millan: Why can we not deal with this in the Scottish Education Bill which is at present going through this House? Could we not insert something in that Bill?

Mr. Noble: We cannot do that for the reason I have stated. This is exactly the same problem in both countries and

the law is exactly the same in both countries. It would be unfair if we were to legislate only for Scotland.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Malicious Damage Convictions

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the maximum amount that a sheriff's court may order a convicted person to pay in restitution of malicious damage to private property; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: There are no general statutory provisions which bear directly on the ordering of restitution of damage additionally to any penalties which the court may impose on conviction. This is in accordance with the view generally accepted in Scotland that restitution is a civil matter.

Mr. Brewis: Has my right hon. Friend seen the articles which appeared recently in the Scotsman, which showed that vandalism is costing about £1 million in Scotland? Is he satisfied that the sheriff courts have sufficient powers to deter people who commit this malicious damage?

Mr. Noble: I have seen the articles to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the increase in senseless vandalism in recent years has not been peculiar to Scotland. I agree that it must be a matter of concern, but I doubt whether it would be useful to examine it from the point of view of changes in the law in isolation from other aspects of delinquency. The law of Scotland relating to juvenile delinquency is at present being reviewed by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a revised memorandum to local authorities on the clearance of derelict sites, in view of the recent change in Government policy.

Mr. Noble: This was done on 5th April. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Dr. Mabon: Since I have already seen a copy of this memorandum, which was published after I had put down a Question, may I direct the Secretary of State's attention to section 5 of this very unsuitable memorandum, which obscures the main point and holds up the clearance of derelict sites—namely, the definition of "derelict"? Is he aware that in Scottish law it is impossible to declare that a site is abandoned or ownerless and that as a consequence local authority applications to him in fact fail? May I direct attention to subsection (j) of section 5 of the memorandum, which asks a hypothetical question which is quite difficult to answer and which, again, might be the cause of applications to him failing. Would he look at the whole thing again in view of the essential importance to industrial development in Scotland?

Mr. Noble: I will look at any problem which a local authority brings to me and which seems to hold up these very necessary schemes.

Mr. Ross: Did the Secretary of State send a copy of the memorandum to the Board of Trade? He will recollect that under the Local Employment Act the Board of Trade has the right to deal with derelict sites if nobody else does so.

Mr. Noble: I expect that the Board of Trade got a copy, too.

Geriatric Beds (Edinburgh)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Edinburgh Local Medical Committee's request for more funds to enable them to solve the immediate geriatric problem in their area.

Mr. Noble: They have been informed of the regional hospital board's plans to provide about 150 additional geriatric beds in existing hospitals over the next few months and to build new accommodation providing a further 360 beds at the Liberton and Royal Victoria Hospitals.

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local committee has expressed complete dissatisfaction with the Secretary of State's reply? Is it not a fact that some beds which he proposes to give to the geriatrics he has taken

from the general patients in hospitals in the area? In other words, he is worsening their position to try to meet this need. In view of the tremendous need for beds of this kind, cannot the right hon. Gentleman allocate more funds for this purpose without impinging on the already small number of beds which are available for general medical patients?

Mr. Noble: I am afraid that I cannot do that. The south-eastern region has had a fair share of the programme, which has to be related to other building programmes in the public sector and to the capacity of the building industry to get through the work.

Multi-Storey Flats, Bearsden

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received respecting the granting of planning permission to erect blocks of multi-storey flats in the burgh of Bearsden; and what steps he is taking to consider these representations.

Mr. Noble: Representations were received in February from the hon. Member, Bearsden Town Council and the Mosshead Association. My hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, replied to the hon. Member on 4th March explaining that it would be inappropriate for me to intervene in the matter, and similar replies to the other representations were sent on my behalf on the same day.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent in this area? These people in Moss-head have paid fantastic prices for their land and houses because they were given verbal pledges that this was the type and style of amenity which they would enjoy. Planning permission has been given for multi-storey flats right up against them. The landscaping is on the other side of the flats, away from the bungalows. This is a shocking piece of development and a shocking piece of undemocratic procedure by the county planning authority and by the right hon. Gentleman in not intervening to stop the building of these flats. Will he do something about it?

Mr. Noble: I think that the hon. Member knows that the responsibility in this matter rests with the local planning authority, not with me. It may be that if


there is an appeal it wilt come to me as the final arbiter. That has not yet happened.

Hospital Plan

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to revise the Hospital Plan for Scotland, Command Paper No. 1602, in view of recent population reports and professional representations to him.

Mr. Noble: In considering further extensions of the Hospital Plan for Scotland, I will take these matters into account.

Dr. Mabon: May we assume from that reply that since there is concern about geriatric, maternity and mental beds, the Secretary of State proposes to take a leaf out of the Minister of Health's book and to publish a revised Hospital Plan in the very near future?

Mr. Noble: I cannot give a promise about the timing of this, but these things are certainly being considered.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are serious doubts in medical and other opinion about the wisdom of reconstructing the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh as proposed in the Hospital Plan and that a great many well-advised people consider that it would be much better to build a completely new hospital and to use the present Royal Infirmary for geriatric beds and thus satisfy both needs at much less expense?

Mr. Noble: I will certainly bear what the right hon. Gentleman said in mind.

Canal and Railway Bridges, Linlithgow

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a full statement, giving chronological detail, regarding the action he has so far taken towards reaching a decision concerning the improvement of the canal and railway bridges in Preston Road, Linlithgow, which were the subject of a public inquiry in July, 1962.

Mr. Noble: An amendment to the West Lothian County Development Plan proposing additional sites for housing

to the south of Linlithgow was submitted in November, 1961. Objections were made, and a public local inquiry was held in July, 1962. I received the report on the inquiry towards the end of January this year and the decision was issued yesterday. I am sending a copy of the letter to the hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell: Why has it taken nine months?

Mr. Noble: The questions which the reporter had to decide were complicated questions. I obviously cannot answer for his problems in this field.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Meteorological Office (Weather Forecast)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air what computers and other equipment are being used or installed in the Meteorological Office for the preparation and issue of 30-day weather forecasts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): The methods of long-range forecasting now being studied by the Meteorological Office do not involve elaborate calculations or the use of special equipment, but an electronic computer is used to expedite the examination of relevant data.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the Meteorological Office intend to publish 30-day forecasts? The Americans' 30-day weather forecasts for these islands have been "bang-on" recently. Further, is the machinery of the Meteorological Office adequate to issue such forecasts?

Mr. Ridsdale: So far we have been against publishing the Meteorological Office's forecasts because we did not think them reliable enough, though they are at least equal to the American forecasts. However, the matter is being given further study and I hope to make a decision fairly soon. The replacement of the present Meteorological Office computer by a faster machine is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Clearways, Chester

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Transport how many bus stops without Jay-bys there are on the stretch of clear way on the trunk road from a point out side the Vicars Cross Golf Club to the point where this clearway meets the Chester cuter ring road.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Eight, Sir—four on each side of the road.

Mr. Temple: Does not my hon. Friend think that this stopping on the highway by public service vehicles destroys the the whole concept of a clearway?

Mr. Hay: Not necessarily. Public service vehicles have to stop on clearways as well as on other roads where clearway conditions are not in operation. We try to ensure that where there is a need for buses to stop on a clearway and they cannot do it without obstruction, if possible they pull off the road.

Mr. Temple: asked the Minister of Transport on what date he commenced his consultations with the Cheshire County Council with regard to the imposition of a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the clearway between the Vicars Cross Golf Club and the termination of this clearway close to the boundary of the city of Chester; and if he will make a statement regarding the present position of the consultations.

Mr. Hay: On 26th February. They are now prepared to await the results of six months' operation of the clearway before expressing a view on the 40 m.p.h. limit proposal. We shall be willing to consider the matter then.

Mr. Temple: Is it not now perfectly clear that all local opinion is in favour of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in order to increase the safety factor on this very dangerous stretch of highway?

Mr. Hay: A number of views have been expressed to us at different times and sometimes those views have differed from the views which have been expressed previously. I think that we had better wait for another couple of months and let the experiment finish, and then we can look at the whole thing again.

Severe Weather Conditions (Expenditure)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what is the total of claims by local authorities for additional expenditure on roads, owing to the severe weather this winter; and what payments he has approved.

Mr. Hay: We have not yet heard from all the local authorities concerned about their additional expenditure on classified roads. But in the year ending 31st March, 1963, expenditure of about £1 million over and above the original Estimate provision was met from the Exchequer for snow clearance from trunk roads and motorways.

Mr. Digby: Can my hon. Friend give some indication of the number of claims which he has turned down and the number which he intends to allow?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. My hon. Friend should not be too pessimistic. We are now awaiting the information. We hope to get it all by the middle of May on classified roads. When we get that information we can decide.

Mr. Mackie: Has any research been undertaken to find out why this damage happens on some roads and not on others?

Mr. Hay: We know why the damage happens. What we do not know is why the atmospheric conditions which caused the damage were as they were.

Tees-side (Deputation)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Transport why after a delay of five months he is not able to receive a deputation of seven Members of Parliament and their constituents to discuss a highways programme for Tees-side.

Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend was asked just before Christmas to receive this deputation. He suggested that we should await the outcome of another meeting, about the problems of Tees-side generally, which a similar deputation was shortly to have with my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and representatives of departments, including the Ministry of Transport. Later my right hon. Friend was again asked to receive a deputation. As he has explained to the right hon. Member, it is


not practicable for him to receive it. He has asked my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do so, and I understand this is now being arranged.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend when he thinks it important enough for him to receive a deputation? Is he aware that in addition to aldermen, there were councillors, seven M.P.S, town clerks and borough engineers? Surely the Minister himself ought to receive a deputation of this kind?

Mr. Hay: I think that the House as a whole will acquit my right hon. Friend of being idle. He is one of the most active of Ministers, as I know only too well. He has a great many deputations to see and a great many things to do. He replied in detail to the right hon. Gentleman on this point. I should have thought that, in all the circumstances of the great consideration which is being given to the problems of the North-East, the deputation would have been quite happy to see my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

POLARIS SUBMARINES (OPERATING BASE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. STODART: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will now announce where an operating base will be constructed for the Polaris submarines.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): After careful consideration of all possible sites in the United Kingdom it has been decided that development of existing submarine operating facilities at Faslane in the Gare Loch offers on balance the greatest advantages for a Polaris operating base. A new armament depot will be constructed at Coulport, on the eastern shore of Loch Long, about 8 miles by road and 13 miles by sea from Faslane.
The operating base for the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines needs to be near deep water; to offer easy navigational access; and to be a short distance by sea from the associated armament depot.
All the Royal dockyards fail in some degree to meet these basic requirements, but Rosyth will, of course, refit Polaris submarines as well as the nuclear hunter/killer submarines.
Survey and similar work will start at Faslane immediately, and the base will be completed by 1968.
Provisional estimates at this stage put the cost of developing the base and armament depot at between £20 million and £25 million, including between £12 million and £15 million for construction work. This work is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.
When the base is finished it is expected that about 1,700 officers and men will be based or stationed there, together with their families.
Civilian staff employed at the base and armament depot will probably number about 400, of whom about half are expected to be recruited locally.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which will be felt at the fact that the operational requirements of the Royal Navy coincide with the particular interests of Scotland at this time? Can he say how much Scottish labour will be required actually to construct the base?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his remarks.
In reply to the second part, between 500 and 1,000 workers will be needed during the construction period. I cannot say more closely than that. It is thought that about half the 400 civilians who will be needed will come from local labour sources; that makes about 200 for the running of the base.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman already knows our views about this programme. Is not this an example of how the costs of this programme will snowball? Is he aware that this very vast expenditure will still further increase the fears of those who are really concerned about the effect of the Polaris programme upon our conventional naval forces?
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the demand for this base arises solely out of the Polaris programme, or would it have been necessary in any case for our hunter-killer programme? Is the £12 million to £14 million solely for the


armament depot, that is, for construction? Does the figure of 1,700 officers and men include any part of the 1,200 estimated for the crews of these submarines?
Finally, can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Certainly. This is exceedingly important. Can he say to what extent this further demand for very skilled manpower will accentuate the already very grave shortage that there is in the Service?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: First, it is not a question of the costs snowballing. The figure I gave during the debate on the Estimates was that the total overall cost of this programme would be about £300 million. This figure comes within the total I then gave and is not additional to it.
Secondly, I would concede that there are obvious economic advantages in amalgamating the administration of both hunter-killer and Polaris submarines in the same base. We are examining the pros and cons of this problem at the moment, but I cannot give a categorical statement at this stage.
Thirdly, the £12 million to £15 million for construction includes the costs of the armament depot.
Fourthly, the figure of 1,700 includes the 1,200 people needed for manning the submarines on a two-crew basis.
Lastly, we are certainly well aware of the manpower problem, and we are now examining a programme for increasing our intake of technical personnel and training them to meet the very carefully worked out date of 1968, when these Polaris submarines must be at sea.

Mr. Brewis: I welcome the extra employment which will be provided in Scotland. Did my hon. Friend look at all existing ports, not only Royal Naval dockyards, before choosing a location? In particular, did he look at Cairnryan Port, in Wigtownshire, before deciding to build a new port?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We certainly examined all possibilities, not only in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but also in England. It was on the operational considerations that we finally decided, as the Americans decided before us, that this area was operationally most suitable for this particular project. I would add

that this expenditure is not unique. We are spending in Scotland, on N.A.T.O. projects which are being built for us by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, £14·9 million, and on naval works alone £8·4 million in our present programme. Therefore, this is a very large amount of support for Scotland.

Mr. Steele: Apart from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about our policy on Polaris, this means bringing many new people to my constituency. Is the Civil Lord having any discussions with the local authority on this matter? What will this mean in relation to accommodation? Will the Admiralty itself provide the houses for these people and their families? What about education? I have already put a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland today about the problems of education in this area. Surely this matter will have to be looked into as well.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We certainly intend to consult the local authorities. I thought that the House of Commons would want to know first. As we are starting our survey this very week, I thought that it was right to make this announcement today. I am well aware of the pressure on educational facilities in the area. We are to start discussions straight away with the local education authority about extra schools to meet the need.
We shall be constructing a housing estate for the Royal Navy and we shall be in consultation with the local authorities about houses for the civilian personnel for this project.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on this decision. I am sure that it is the right one, following, as he said, the American example. Will my hon. Friend clarify what work is now to be done at Rosyth? Is it to be only a question of refits for these submarines at Rosyth so that very little extra work will actually be undertaken there?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. The Polaris submarines will off-load their missiles, which will be taken care of at Coulport where they will be maintained, and the boats will then go round to Rosyth where they will be maintained and refitted.

Mr. Healey: Are we to understand that it will be at least five years, even if everything goes well, before the first Polaris submarine is operational?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. The target date we gave earlier was that we should launch the Polaris submarines at the end of 1967, and they will be operational about five years from now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

LAOS

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the situation in Laos.
Integration of the three rival armies was a central feature of the Geneva settlement, and pending such action there is an obligation on each party to desist from trying to secure an advantage by recourse to arms. However, Left-wing forces, probably with North Vietnamese support, have been driving the neutralist supporters of the Prime Minister out of their positions in the Plain des Jarres. Thus, the whole settlement has been put in jeopardy. This must concern us both as signatories to the agreement and because of my noble Friend's responsibilities as co-Chairman of the Laos Conference.
Our Ambassador in Laos, with the Soviet Ambassador's co-operation, has supported the efforts of the Prime Minister of Laos to halt the fighting, to get the contending leaders to agree, and to restore the situation. He has also been working closely with the International Control Commission to secure the right of the Commission to travel anywhere in the country and to maintain a presence wherever this is necessary to fulfil the terms of the agreement.
My noble Friend has discussed these matters with Mr. Gromyko, as Soviet co-Chairman. Mr. Gromyko failed to agree to my noble Friend's proposals for joint action and has chosen to publish his own counter-proposals. In view of Mr. Gromyko's action, copies of the full

exchanges have been placed in the Vote Office and released to the Press here.
The Soviet co-Chairman insisted on including in his draft message to the Government of Laos one-sided allegations against the American Government which my noble Friend regarded as unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding this, a large measure of agreement was reached as to what might be done and, although no action by the co-Chairmen is now possible, our Ambassador in Laos has been told to draw the attention of the Government of Laos and the Control Commission to the common views expressed in these exchanges.
A new truce now seems to have halted fighting on the spot. I hope that, this time, the truce will hold. I also trust that it will be generally accepted that the Commission should be present to deter any renewal of fighting and should exercise its authority to restore the situation which prevailed before the recent Pathet Lao advances.
Action in this respect will be a test of the good faith of all parties in Laos and also of the other signatories of the Geneva agreement.
In our view, these dangerous developments have not resulted from any defect in the agreement itself. This clearly provides for what should be done if such developments occur, and for the proper investigation of accusations that there has been foreign interference in Laos.
The next few days should show whether the settlement is to be allowed to survive or not. Mr. Averell Harriman, in discussions yesterday with my noble Friend, expressed the unwavering support of the United States for the Geneva settlement for an independent unaligned Laos. I am sure that the whole House will agree that it would be most harmful if this outstanding example of the ability of East and West to reach a constructive solution to their problems by negotiation were to fail.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that anything that Her Majesty's Government can do to maintain the non-aligned position of Laos will receive the very general support of hon. Members on both sides of the House? It is of extreme importance to the general balance between East and West in the world that this particular status quo


should be preserved. Is he aware, however, that his flat statement that no action by the co-Chairmen is now possible is rather disturbing?
We regret that the Russians have unilaterally published their side of the exchange. None the less, as his statement showed that considerable progress has been made in agreement with the Russians—and it is extremely important that we should not close our minds, as seemed to be implied in his statement, to the achievement of real co-operation between us on Laos, because this is one part of the world where we have a measure of common interest—could the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks about the proposal that the International Control Commission should—and I think that this is implied in his statement— send observers to police the present rather temporary truce in order to try to make it stick, because this is the first great need?

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the views of the House as a whole towards the need for maintaining the cease-fire in this part of the world, the unaligned State of Laos, and the position between East and West.
On the question of joint action by the co-Chairmen, my noble Friend is, of course, anxious that we should be able to take such action. In this particular case it was not possible to reach agreement, and why my noble Friend regrets the publication of these documents is that in the normal way one would have continued through the diplomatic channels to try to reach agreement about the contents of the notes, which we would have sent to the Government of Laos.
I think that I can reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point by saying that my noble Friend would hope to be able to take joint action with the Soviet Foreign Minister, if we can get agreement on it. I am also in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to station members of the International Control Commission on the spot in the areas of the truce so that we can have reports from them on the state of affairs there and so that they can use their authority to maintain the truce.

Mr. Mendelson: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the past successes of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in creating an atmosphere of agreement over Laos are, perhaps, the most important potential casualty in this dangerous situation? Could the right hon. Gentleman at least make a preliminary statement about the series of murders which have recently occurred in Laos, in which a number of people who are Left wing of the centre, which the Prime Minister there represents, have been murdered in an organised fashion? Does this not remind him of the series of murders which occurred in China, where the centre was deliberately eleminated by the Right wing in order to impose dictatorship later on, but which led to the opposite result? Would the Lord Privy Seal not consider, with the Soviet Government, making an investigation of these murders so that there might be a better base for joint action by the co-Chairmen?

Mr. Heath: We have, of course, deplored the murders for political reasons which have taken place in Laos recently; and there have been a number of them. But I would not agree with the hon. Member's analysis of the political position of those who have been the casualties of these political assassinations. We have done our utmost to impress on all the parties in Laos that they should bring to an end this form of political assassination.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the authorities in Laos prevented members of the Control Commission from visiting the areas in which hostilities have been resumed and thereby made it impossible for them to check on what was happening? Would it be worth while considering inviting or arranging for representatives of the co-Chairmen—that is, Soviet and British representatives—to be associated with the Control Commission in supervising what he taking place in central Laos?

Mr. Heath: It is Prince Souphan-nouvong and members of the Pathet Lao who have objected to the Control Commission carrying out its duties under the Geneva settlement.
The British and Soviet ambassadors have been playing their part in remaining


in close contact with the members of the Control Commission when there have been discussions between the various parties in Laos about the truce and the activities of the Commission. The Control Commission has all the facilities necessary to carry out those activities—it has all the powers under the Geneva settlement to do it—provided that the parties in Laos themselves will agree to the Commission moving about the country.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that all of us want to see a neutralist solution to this problem? Is it not a fact that in the exchange of letters with Mr. Gromyko, he actually accepted the action proposed by Her Majesty's Government but had that unfortunate addendum, which was very one-sided? Is not the action more important than the expression of opinion in the addendum? In view of the psychological background which there is in Laos because of the previous American support of the Rightist element to secure a solution of this problem, would it not be much better now to call in the United Nations, and particularly U Thant, who has such a reputation in Asia?

Mr. Heath: As I said in my statement, if hon. Members look at the copies of the exchange of correspondence which have been placed in the Vote Office they will see that there is a considerable amount of general agreement, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said, about the action to be taken. That is the reason why we have drawn the attention of the Prime Minister and the Government of Laos and of the International Control Commission to the common parts of the exchange of correspondence and have expressed the hope that they will act on those.
I do not think that it is correct to say that Mr. Gromyko accepted all our proposals. Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount of common agreement. I do not think that it would be right now to call in the United Nations or its Secre-

tary-General. The provisions of the Geneva settlement can be carried out if there is good faith between the three parties involved in the Government of Laos; and it is that which we are trying to achieve now.

Mr. Thorpe: The Lord Privy Seal has spoken about co-operation between the Soviet and British Ambassadors. Can he say what the effect of Mr. Gromyko's counter-proposals is to vitiate that co-operation, particularly in regard to the freedom of movement of the Control Commission and the right of access to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Is this a matter on which there is still co-operation and agreement between the two ambassadors?

Mr. Heath: We hope that it will not vitiate future co-operation, but so far we have not had any experience since the publication of the correspondence.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal a point of fact. Has the Soviet Union yet expressed itself in agreement with the idea of representatives or observers of the International Commission going to the area of trouble, or has not that idea yet been raised with the Soviet Government?

Mr. Heath: The position is that the International Control Commission can go to the area, either at the request of the Government of Laos—but that, of course, is being prevented by the Pathet Lao members of the Government—or on its own initiative. The position at the moment is that the Soviet co-Chairman has not joined with us in asking the Commission to carry out these activities.

Sir C. Osborne: When it comes to fighting, why is it that the Communists always seem to win? Is it that they are getting better arms from their side than the others are getting from ours?

Mr. Heath: As I mentioned in the earlier part of my statement, the indications are that the Pathet Lao forces are receiving support from the North Vietnamese.

MR. SPEAKER'S CONSTITUENCY

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the creation of a constituency to be known as St. Stephen's and represented by Mr. Speaker.
It is not often that the House of Commons has the opportunity of meeting problems before they arise, but I wish for a few minutes to provide an opportunity to discuss something which I believe to be of importance in an air of calm deliberation, not affected by party political considerations or by differences between the two sides.
The problem arises at this juncture, and is becoming pressing, because within a few months the country will be faced with a General Election, and at that election there will, as I think most commentators agree, be a considerable swing against the Conservative Party and a considerable swing in favour of the Labour Party. That means that all seats are likely to be contested. This is a good thing, except in one particular case.
Your own seat, Mr. Speaker, in Westminster, will also be contested at that time. Already, there is a candidate from an extraordinary party known as the Fellowship Party. I understand, too, that a candidate has already been nominated from a party better known but just as extraordinary, the Liberal Party. Even more important in terms of realpolitik, there will almost certainly be a candidate from the Labour Party. The House therefore faces the position that it is now quite clear that at the next General Election Mr. Speaker's seat will be contested.
That will be the fifth time that Mr. Speaker's seat has been contested in the last hundred years. In the first two of those contests, the Speakers concerned were Mr. Speaker Peel, in 1885, and Mr. Speaker Gully, in 1895, and both contests arose in rather different and rather special circumstances. But the contests for Mr. Speaker's seat in 1935 and 1945 and the contest for that seat at the next General Election arise, in my view—and I put this for the consideration of the House—from the failure of the present

arrangements to satisfy two conflicting aims.
The first aim is what I regard as the very important one isolating the office of Mr. Speaker from internal party controversy. I believe that this is essential. I do not believe that the respect accorded to Mr. Speaker's office by members of the Opposition or the Government can be achieved if the holder of the office ever becomes part of that normal political controversy which I regard as a healthy thing in a democracy, but which, I believe, strikes at the very function of your office, Sir. The first aim, therefore, is to isolate Mr. Speaker from political controversy.
The second aim in a democracy is to enable any elector who is qualified as an elector to express his or her political point of view. Some commentators have suggested that under the present arrangements it is possible for the electors in Mr. Speaker's constituency to be represented as electors, as is their democratic right, because none of us is under any illusion at all that a request to a Minister from yourself, Mr. Speaker, would probably produce much faster results than would be achieved by one of the political proletariat here.
But in a democracy that is not the purpose of political representation. It is not the function of a Member of Parliament merely to be able to raise constituency issues on behalf of his constituents. In a democracy, it is the right of an elector to be able to pronounce on the big political, international and economic issues of the day, and as long as Mr. Speaker's seat is, by tradition, not contested, the electors within that constituency are deprived of the opportunity properly of expressing their political point of view on the big issues of the day.
For that reason, it is important that we should see whether there is some way in which we can achieve both these aims. I am suggesting, in my proposed Bill—and it is not a particularly new idea—that there shall be constituted a special, and a nominal, constituency of St. Stephen's which would be represented by Mr. Speaker upon his election to that office. Mr. Speaker would become the Member for St. Stephen's. There would then be a by-election in his former constituency, in which the electors would


be represented by the party politician of their choice.
Some commentators, notably The Times, for which back benchers normally have a fitting reverence, have suggested that it is essential to Mr. Speaker's office that he should be "one of us," and that the respect for and authority of the Speaker is drawn from the fact that he is himself an ordinary Member of Parliament. I suggest that this is a fallacy. Mr. Speaker is not an ordinary Member of Parliament. Indeed, the powers wielded by a modern Speaker would, in a democracy, be intolerable in the hands of anybody who was an ordinary Member of Parliament.
It is quite beyond belief that in a democracy we could permit any ordinary Member of Parliament to be able to pick and choose which Amendments shall be debated, to determine whether a debate shall be closured, and to exercise all the very real and extraordinary powers which Mr. Speaker quite necessarily, and quite rightly, carries. There are other differences. Legislation over the last hundred years, and before that, has been directed towards making Mr. Speaker's office a quite special one, to make of it the non-political embodiment of the House as a whole, and, with respect, I suggest that it is from that that you draw your authority. Sir.
There are many other differences that one could produce to further the argument that you are not as the rest of us. In my researches I have found, and it has been mentioned before, that you do not pay Income Tax, which the rest of us have to pay. During a Dissolution, you retain your powers and continue in your office. In my view, all these things are essential to a modern Speaker, but they also make nonsense of the argument that Mr. Speaker's authority is drawn from the fact that he is an ordinary Member of Parliament.
The other argument against this is that if Mr. Speaker represents a specific Speaker's seat then, on the loss of his office as Speaker, he would cease to be a Member of this House. That is a very desirable thing, because I think that it would be undesirable to have any Speaker at any time reverting to being an active party politician within this House of Commons. The last Speaker who did so was Mr. Speaker Addington, in 1789,

and he resigned to become Prime Minister. While many of us feel that any change could only be for the good in this direction, we on this side of the House have already chosen the present right hon. Gentleman's successor.
We are faced with the problem of what to do about the approaching situation. If we do not change the present position with regard to your office, Mr. Speaker, within a few months there will be a General Election and your seat will be contested. It will then be the third time that it has been contested since 1935. I believe strongly that this is an extremely undesirable custom which is growing up and something which we should seek to avoid. It is quite wrong and incompatible with democracy in 1963 that any group of constituents, for whatever reason, should be deprived of the right of electing not only the person of their choice but—to face the realities of the present party system—the party politics of their choice. I would, therefore, ask permission to bring in the Bill on these grounds.
It is not difficult, of course, to find anomalies in this position. Indeed, it is fashionable to point out the anomalies which exist in the British Constitution at present and all the illogicalities in the way we run our affairs. One thing which can be said in favour of the British Constitution or Parliamentary system is that it happens to work rather better than the systems which other people have followed. It has worked because it is a pragmatic system based on the recognition of difficulties and on the desire to ensure that the system always works to the best of our ability.
We are faced, however, with these conflicts with regard to this extremely important office and because of this I beg to ask leave to bring in the Bill.

4.2 p.m.

Major Sir Frank Markham: As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said, this is an old idea. It is so old an idea that I think that the most senior Member of the House—bless him—was very much in the cradle when it was already old history. Royal Commission after Royal Commission has gone into the subject, and there has been inquiry after inquiry. One after the other has turned down this suggestion, and for very good reasons.
The first reason—and I say this with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker—is that whoever was appointed Speaker, from the moment that the Bill was passed, could regard his office as a lifelong job from which he could never be turned out. There would be no check on his appointment, either by the House or by a constituency. I think that that would be very wrong.
The second point is that once we introduce a Measure of this kind, creating one Member of Parliament, whatever his office, in a quite separate, distinctive and privileged category from any other Member, we would have his deputies wishing that they had the same privilege. It would not be long before

the House extended this privilege, or uniqueness, to Deputy-Speakers and Chairmen of Committees. At present, we have the straightforward practice that every Member of the House, no matter what his position, however dignified and honourable, is liable to the chance of the polls. It is very wise that we should retain that, even with so high and privileged an office as that of Mr. Speaker.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —

The House divided: Ayes 68 Noes 76

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[4.4 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, B. K.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Paton, John


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rodgers, w. T. (Stockton)


Collick, Percy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Sorensen, R. W.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Darling, George
Lipton, Marcus
Thornton, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Thorpe, Jeremy


Driberg, Tom
Lubbock, Eric
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finch, Harold
MacDermot, Niall
Walnwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Warbey, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Mapp, Charles
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Manuel and Mr. Mackie.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey





NOES


Barlow, Sir John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Neal, Harold


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Neave, Airey


Benson, Sir George
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Box, Donald
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pott, Percivall


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
 Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Lagden, Godfrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cleaver, Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C, G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Cordle, John
Lawson, George
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Crawley, Aidan
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stodart, J. A.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. G. E. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walker, Peter


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Maclean, SirFltzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Eden, John
Maitland, Sir John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mawby, Ray



Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sir Frank Markham and


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morrison, John
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke.


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Marsh, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Mr. Tom Driberg, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe.

MR. SPEAKER'S CONSTITUENCY

Bill to provide for the creation of a constituency to be known as St. Stephen's and represented by Mr. Speaker, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 9, page 4, lines 7, 9, 12, and 13. Clause 13, page 9, lines 43 and 46, Clause 18, page 12, line 11, Clause 24, page 14, line 31, the proposed Clauses (Certain parks not to be entered in valuation roll) and (Amendment of s. 243 of Act of 1947), and the Amendment to Schedule 3, page 18, line 7, column 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Noble.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Question amended, by adding to the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3. line 8, and page 4, line 10, and the proposed Clauses (Exchequer grants) and (Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross".—[Mr. Ross.]
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 4, and Clause 2, page 2, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Willis".—[Mr. Willis.]
and in respect of the proposed Clause (Certain village halls not to be entered in valuation roll) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Hendry".—[Mr. Hendry.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXCHEQUER EQUALISA TION AND TRANSITIONAL GRANTS.)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4. at the end to add:
Subject to the proviso that the aggregate sum payable to Scottish local authorities by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant shall be increased by 5 per cent. for every 1 per cent. of registered unemployed during the relevant year.

The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient to discuss, at the same


time, the new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed", in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members, with an opportunity for a Division on this new Clause at a later stage if that be desired, and also the Amendment, on the Report stage, in Clause 9, page 7, line 30, at the end to insert:
(5) In addition to the provisions of the foregoing subsection the weighted population of an area shall be increased by the number of unemployed persons registered there at 1st February in the immediately preceding year.

Mr. Willis: Before I proceed, Sir William, could I be clear whether it will be possible to vote on the other Amendment?

The Chairman: Specifically, on the new Clause, the answer is "Yes". I prefer not to answer the question as to the Amendment on the Report stage, because that is for the House as a whole and not for my decision in Committee.

Mr. Archie Manuel: On a point of order, Sir William. I hope that I have understood clearly what you have said about the Amendment in my name in Clause 9, page 7, line 30. Did you say that we could have an opportunity to vote on that as well as on the others?

The Chairman: Perhaps I did not make it clear in my previous answer. There will be an opportunity to vote on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). There will be an opportunity, if desired, to vote on the new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed". Whether or not there will be an opportunity to vote on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman during the Report stage I should not like to say, because I am here now only as Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Willis: Clause 1 of the Bill continues the provisions relating to Exchequer equalisation and transitional grants, and the Amendment which I have moved is designed to increase the amount payable by way of Exchequer equalisation grant in accordance with the percentages set out. The Amendment recognises a problem which greatly exercised the Standing Committee, namely, the high

and continuing level of unemployment in Scotland. If it were accepted, it would, at present, mean, roughly, an additional £5 million to be added to the Exchequer equalisation grant for distribution among the local authorities, and this, I suggest, would help the local authorities in dealing with the problem so far as it affects them.
As I have said, everyone is aware that unemployment is a continuing problem in Scotland. It has not suddenly appeared during the winter months, owing to the bad weather. It has gone on for far too long, and, in spite of everything which the Government claim to have done, the fact remains that it is far worse in April, 1963, than it was in April, 1962. That does not indicate that any progress has been made during the past year. If we go back to the days of the Labour Government and compare the present situation with April, 1951, the increase in unemployment is even greater. That is a measure of the Government's failure to deal with this problem. It is also a measure of the needs of local authorities.
We on this side have advocated a number of measures to deal with unemployment. We feel not that there is any single remedy for this problem, but that it should be attacked on a number of fronts and that one front is the local authority front. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) tried to introduce a Private Member's Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure which he thought would have helped in this respect Some local authorities in Scotland have built advance factories. A number of other things have been done by local authorities in an effort to assist.
Unemployment involves local authorities in expenditure. If local authorities are anxious to deal with the problem of unemployment in their areas, they will undertake the expenditure necessary to do that. This is already being done. I have just said that some local authorities have built advance factories, for which they do not receive a grant, to try to encourage industrialists to go to their areas. Other local authorities have launched campaigns to try to attract industrialists to their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West represents part of a county which has just


launched a big campaign to attract industries to its area. A similar campaign has been launched by Midlothian.
If there were full employment in these areas, there would be no reason for these campaigns. The reason for them arises from the fact that there is heavy unemployment, and, therefore, local authorities are involved in considerable expenditure, not only in the directions which I have mentioned, but also, if they wish to deal with unemployment in their areas, by the speeding up of local government works, which is what any local authority worth its salt will do. But we have a Secretary of State who is viciously cutting down local authority programmes. When a local authority wishes to embark on a big educational programme and to build schools, the right hon. Gentleman viciously cuts it down precisely at the time when many people in Scotland are looking for work.
That is not the sort of thing that we visualise. We realise that local authorities will be involved in expenditure if they try to speed up work in their areas and to go ahead with projects to alleviate the unemployment in their areas. It is clear that if a local authority wishes to play its part in dealing with the unemployment problem in its area—and this applies to most areas in Scotland at present—it will be involved in fairly substantial expenditure.
There is the other side of the picture, namely, that heavy unemployment in a local government area probably means a loss of revenue. The likelihood is that the revenue-earning services will not earn the sum that they usually earn. Therefore, expenditure will be the smaller. They will probably lose money on their housing revenue accounts and will be unable to meet certain expenditures falling on unemployed people by the grant of a remission of rates. Some local authorities will even suffer from a loss of rents. All these things cause loss to local authorities and, therefore, less will be spent on revenue-earning projects.
We suggest that in an area like Scotland, which has had a rate of unemployment double that of the rest of Great Britain ever since the war, it is necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the expenditure which arises from this situation. We suggest that for every

1 per cent. of registered unemployed there should be a 5 per cent. increase in the Exchequer equalisation grant, which, I think, works out at about £1 million based on the present figure for every 1 per cent. of unemployment, which means an additional £5 million.
This would also create an additional £5 million in purchasing power in Scotland and I have no doubt that a considerable part of it—I do not suggest all of it—would be spent in Scotland. The exact amount would depend on the extent to which local authorities wished to spent in Scotland. Whatever policy they followed in spending this money, they would without doubt, I think, spend a considerable part of it in Scotland and, to that extent, it would help to create employment in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment is worthy of the Committee's serious attention.
During our Committee discussions, we tried to deal with the difficulties arising from unemployment by various means. We have some quite good debates. Hon. Members on both sides expressed concern about unemployment. I was sorry to see that some hon. Members opposite did not seem to be so concerned with the Report stage because they failed to table the Amendments which they had tabled in Committee despite the fact that the Government offered to consider them and to see what could be done about them. The Under-Secretary of State will know that his hon. Friends now sitting behind him spoke of the excellent service which their contributions and Amendments had performed. He will remember that his hon. Friends said to him that their contributions would strengthen his hand when he went to see the Treasury. I am wondering why hon. Members opposite have suddenly become so timid. This timidity is not becoming of them.

The Earl of Dalkeith: We have strengthened his hand. We have achieved our object.

Mr. Willis: I find it difficult to see how their object has been achieved in the Amendments put on the Notice Paper by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I see no Amendments dealing with unemployment tabled by hon. Members opposite. Admittedly, there is an Amendment dealing with a concession on rebates. While that is part of the same question, the unemployment problem is


not dealt with in the way that we are trying to deal with it, namely, by recognising the problem of unemployment by granting additional moneys to local authorities to help in solving it.

Mr. James McInnes: Where are all the Tories?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I do not know where all hon. Members opposite are. Obviously, they are not very interested in unemployment in Scotland. We on this side of the Committee are very interested. We think that this proposition is very useful. The proposition was not made during the Committee stage. We tended to seek to divide the equalisation grant rather differently, as the Under-Secretary knows. But this would give us a larger overall amount to divide in rather a different fashion from the method which we advocated in Committee.
I hope that the Under-Secretary has given this Amendment, which has been on the Notice Paper for some time, very close thought and consideration and that he is convinced of its worthiness and will accept it. In fact, the debate will be much shorter if he tells us that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.
Even if he has not quite made up his mind, perhaps he will listen to the arguments to be advanced, in addition to those which I have put forward, and, at the end of the day, will agree that this is a worth-while proposition, that it seeks to do what all good Scotsmen would like to do, namely, assist the unemployed in Scotland, as well as the economic situation.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craig-ton): I support the Amendment. I wish to talk particularly about the proposed new Clause, "Adjustment of weighted population in respect of unemployed", which has the same purpose as the Amendment, namely, to increase the total Exchequer equalisation grant payable to Scotland, but which proposes to do it in rather a different way from that proposed in the Amendment.
On the general argument, I do not wish to go over all the ground which has been covered so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but I want to reinforce the point that he made relating to large-scale unemployment in a local authority

area when the local authority is involved in additional expenditure.
I would mention, in addition to the matters that have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Government's recent proposal to local authorities that they should initiate schemes costing up to £15,000, both on revenue and capital expenditure, with the specific purpose of alleviating unemployment. I am sure that a number of local authorities in Scotland have carried out work under the specific request from the Government.
That work, to some extent, will be subject to Government grant, but in the case of other minor works of that nature with the specific purpose of relieving unemployment—for instance, works involving educational expenditure which is subject to the general block grant—this expenditure will have been added to the local authority expenditure burden without any compensation from the Government. Yet it is expenditure which has been incurred specifically to relieve local unemployment. That, added to the other instances mentioned by my hon. Friend, illustrates the amount of additional expenditure in which local authorities may well find themselves involved because they have higher than average unemployment figures.
There is, however, another aspect of the question. If, in a local authority area, there is high unemployment, there is a correspondingly reduced ability on the part of the ratepayers to pay the local rates, at whatever level they may be, and it seems to me that there is a case for giving additional assistance to local authorities in that position, from this point of view, almost stronger than the case for giving them additional assistance because of the additional expenditure which they may have to carry out.
These are the general arguments. I should now like to deal with the specific way in which the additional assistance should be given, and how it should be calculated. During our debates in Committee a constant theme of the Undersecretary has been that we must, whatever we do, maintain parity between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other, in the calculation of total Exchequer equalisation grant, and we have had considerable arguments as to whether or not the present position maintains parity between the two countries.
I do not propose to go over all these arguments again, but I want to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the method which is outlined in the proposed new Clause for adjusting the Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland because of higher than average unemployment, and to point out to him that this method does maintain parity between Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other.
What is proposed is that the weighted population which is used in the formula for calculating the Scottish total grant should be adjusted to take account of excess unemployment in Scotland in comparison with unemployment in England and Wales. I am not proposing, and the Clause does not propose, that the total Scottish unemployment should be added to the weighted population, because one would perhaps have an inequitable position. It is simply suggested that the additional Scottish unemployment over what the figure would be if our unemployment rate were the same as the rate for England and Wales should be added to the weighted population. It seems to me that this is a perfectly equitable way of making an adjustment to the formula.
What would this new Clause cost the Government? I calculate that, on the present unemployment figures, where the Scottish percentage is 5·2 as compared with the United Kingdom percentage, excluding Northern Ireland, of 2·7, the cost to the Exchequer might be about £1 million. But the important point is this. If the Government were to reduce the unemployment in Scotland to the same figure as exists in England and Wales, this proposed new Clause would not cost the Government a penny.
The new Clause, in fact, gives a financial incentive—apart from the other incentives—to the Government to reduce the Scotish unemployment figure to the level which exists in England and Wales. If the Government succeeded in doing this, it would not cost them a penny to have this adjustment to the formula written into the legislation.

Mr. John Brewis: Surely it is equally true of any amount spent on alleviating local unemployment like the recent measures in the Budget.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure whether that was meant to be a helpful intervention or

not. I assume that it was. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is accepting my point. If the Government's policy succeeds in reducing unemployment the Government will save money, and I should have thought that that was an admirable principle for the Government to accept.
May I remind the Under-Secretary of the analogy with Clause 3? The Government are apparently concerned about rent levels and are introducing a formula for reducing Exchequer equalisation grant to local authorities if their rent levels are, in the Government's view, too low. The Government have pointed out that this would give an incentive to local authorities to raise their rent levels, and that if they raised their rent levels they would not lose anything under Clause 3.
If we employ the same sort of principle to this proposed new Clause—the only difference being that the Government's reasoning on Clause 3 is fallacious, whereas my reasoning is not—we find that there is a similar incentive on the part of the Government to get the Scottish economy much more prosperous than it is at present, and if this were to happen the Government would not have to spend any money under the new Clause.
When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State promised to consult the local authority organisations about the new Clause. In columns 497 and 498 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, he gave the most specific assurances that he would discuss these matters with them.
Two matters are involved. One is the alteration of the formula to increase the total sum coming to Scotland and the other is the alteration to take unemployment into the formula for the distribution of the total. That is a necessary counterpart to the new Clause of which I have been speaking. I understand, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is specifically concerned with that, since he has put down an Amendment for the purpose of altering the distribution formula within Scotland.
The two matters of the total grant and the distribution formula were to be discussed with the local authority associations. I shall be interested to know the outcome of the consultations. I cannot imagine that the local authorities would wish to reject the kind of


new Clause of which I have been speaking, because no local authority, whatever its unemployment position, could fail to gain under the new Clause. In so far as the total which comes to Scotland is increased, every local authority would be able to gain to some extent.
I hope that the local authority associations have told the Under-Secretary that they are in favour of the new Clause and that he will now accept it. I am heartened a little by what the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said about the Government having given in on this matter, although there is nothing to that effect upon the Notice Paper. I take that to mean that the Under-Secretary will simply accept our Amendments. That would be a desirable outcome to our discussions. If the hon. Gentleman were to do that, he would give another example of the Government's determination to help to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: It is true that in Standing Committee I spoke with conviction in favour of the new Clause. Since then, I have given the whole question careful thought—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is now backing out.

Mr. Hendry: I supported the new Clause taken in conjunction with an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). In considering the matter, I feel that I was to some extent wrong in the action which I took at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is only fair to explain to hon. Members opposite exactly why I have come to that view.
If there is a high proportion of unemployment in any local employment area, and if the local authority action to provide work for those who are unemployed, I may be wrong but it seems to me that the expenditure incurred by the local authority in doing that might rank for Government grant in one of two ways. It might rank for Government grant under the Local Employment Act, which could be to the great advantage of the local authority. At the same time, the expenditure would rank directly for equalisation grant by way of expenditure

and not because of some hypothetical burden which might descend upon the local authority.
In view of that, it seems to me that on the general principle the local authority would get Government grant to compensate it for the extra expenditure which it is called upon to meet.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.

Mr. Hendry: Possibly, the hon. Member will explain where I am wrong. On the other hand, I agree, and I always have done, that a local authority might find itself burdened in another way under Clause 3.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Member tell me under what Act of Parliament the local authority gets 100 per cent. of its local employment expenditure met by grant?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hendry: I never said such a thing. Possibly, the hon. Member will have something to say about that. I think, however, that I am right in saying that any expenditure so incurred by a local authority would rank for equalisation grant. As far as I can see, it would also rank, provided that the local authority was in an appropriate area, for grants under the Local Employment Act. I have investigated this matter on behalf of certain local authorities in my constituency who are eligible for such grants.
I said that a local authority might suffer, because it might not be able to get the whole of its council house rants. In that case, it would suffer under Clause 3 of the Bill. It would, no doubt, be out of order for me to go into that subject at length at this stage, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put down an Amendment to Clause 3 which is designed specifically to deal with that very point. Taking these two sets of circumstances together, I consider that the Amendments which we are discussing and the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) are not the best way of dealing with the situation.
When this matter was dealt with earlier, we discussed all sorts of ways of dealing with the problem. There was the great difficulty that Scotland might suffer as compared with England. If the new Clause which will be proposed later


by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is passed by the Committee, and becomes law, Scotland will not suffer as compared with England.
My other objection is that the whole matter is purely hypothetical. There is no actual hard expenditure which would rank for equalisation grant under the Amendment or the new Clause. If, however, a local authority incurs expenditure, I suggest that it would be amply compensated by Government grants under different legislation from that which we are discussing.

Mr. Manuel: No doubt, other hon. Members as well as myself are greatly surprised at the contribution to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Obviously, the hon. Member has only scratched the surface about Government schemes financed by local authorities and about the Exchequer equalisation grant. He has had the opportunity to look at the list of local authorities which are receiving grants. Many local authorities do not receive any Exchequer equalisation grant. Any local authority which is trying to bring forward a scheme to relieve unemployment and which is not receiving Exchequer equalisation grant will not have the opportunity of getting a proportion of the global sum of equalisation grant against that relevant expenditure.
On an earlier occasion, we had from the Under-Secretary of State quite a lecture—a most helpful contribution—about how the scheme operated, but the sweeping remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West are quite wrong. This whole problem has been dealt with fraudulently. There was a promise from the central Government to local authorities which undertook reclamation work or the clearance of derelict areas. We had a fraudulent presentation which did not mean the impression that was conveyed in the House.
I have read in my local newspaper of the great trouble that has been taken by one local authority in dealing with the Scottish Office—I do not want to read the whole correspondence, but I have it with me—concerning the Scottish Development Department and in attempting to get schemes of reclamation

of the foreshore and derelict land. Mr. G. M. Fair, an official of the Scottish Development Department, wrote at length replying to the town clerk that the scope of the circular extended both to projects which would fall to be financed by local authorities themselves and to projects which would in the normal way be eligible for grant or subsidy.
If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West accepts the Scottish Office circular he must accept this remark to the local authority. It would be better if the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) were to name the local authority than that I should, but I have here my local newspaper, and I have taken an interest in this matter. The town clerk replied to Mr. Fair:
If I understand the position correctly the circular does not, in fact, infer any promise of new or additional financial assistance to local authorities in the distressed areas, but simply the expedition of existing departmental procedures. I am afraid that this will be received with disappointment.
Mr. Fair replied, as reported on 8th February this year, repeating that the basic purpose of the circular was to enable local authorities in selected areas to bring forward a number of projects which, because of earlier capital investment limitations, might have had to be deferred for some time. It did not, as had been inferred, offer any new kind of financial assistance.

Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Member suggesting that that expenditure would not rank for the equalisation grant?

Mr. Manuel: I said that there are many local authorities—and the hon. Member is bound to know this—which do not qualify for the Exchequer equalisation grant. Many of the authorities starting schemes of this kind will not qualify. We had quite a lengthy contribution from the Under-Secretary of State about this. I want to clear this up only because of the remarks that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West made. All that we have been promised in new commitments by the Treasury is merely the bringing forward of schemes which would have been adopted anyhow. That is why I say that it is rather fraudulent.
I want to support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his usual fluent and invigorating style.
and also the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I want to devote my remarks to the Amendment we are considering dealing with weighting for unemployment. I can see no reason why unemployment should not be a weighting factor as well as the number of schoolchildren under 15 or the number of miles of road, or anything else, particularly when we are suffering from the harsh injustices of heavy and persistent unemployment in many areas. The Government ought to have looked at this. There are certain areas which are much more heavily hit by unemployment than others, and to aid such areas we think that weighted population should be increased by the number of unemployed persons registered at 1st February in the year immediately preceding.
Those words sound rather familiar. We debated this at some length along with our new Clause in Standing Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, I wonder why the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who was so much at one with us in the Standing Committee, has not got an Amendment on the Paper. He must remember that in Standing Committee an Amendment of his was debated along with our new Clause, and we were agreed on it. I am tempted to record one or two of the things said by hon. Members opposite. I have met local organisations, along with the hon. Gentleman, and he has been deeply concerned about unemployment not only in my area but in his area where I live. The Undersecretary of State rather slipped up on a certain understanding he gave us, and I certainly expected that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire would have put down an Amendment on Report. I discussed it with one or two of my hon. Friends. We thought that possibly he was out of the country, for he travels extensively, and that was the reason, perhaps, that it slipped his memory; or perhaps he was engaged in some military explorations. However, do not let us forget that the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment in Standing Committee only because of a pledge he received—as we did. Many Members on both sides of the Standing Committee supported both the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and our new Clause.

The Under-Secretary of State is not going to ride off from this today. My job today is, I think, to make certain that he toes the line and answers this debate very fully, and particularly about that promise. He realised in the Standing Committee that on that occasion he was going to be defeated and that was the only reason why he suggested in his best Highland manner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that he would consult the local authority associations—as a get out. He did it as a get out because he knew he would be defeated. The Tory Whip had slipped him a note—

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: Will the hon. Member just say what he means by "his best Highland manner"?

Mr. Manuel: Well, it was—

The Chairman: Order. I think the Committee will be well advised to keep closer to the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I was merely thinking, Sir William, of the—

Sir F. Maclean: On a point of order. If an hon. Member uses a phrase surely it is in order to ask him what he means—

Mr. Manuel: Yes.

Sir F. Maclean: —even if it is rather contentious?

The Chairman: I accept that, but it must be borne in mind that we have a good deal of business to get through.

Mr. Manuel: All I meant was this, that the Under-Secretary's constituency borders the Highlands and he was meeting those very polite people who can give one a very nice answer at all times, and that is what he did. Highlanders are very good negotiators. I think that is a tribute I should pay them.
I would say to the Under-Secretary that he might play these games too often. We ought to have known. I rather blame myself. We ought to have known the outcome of this little manoeuvre in Standing Committee. I cannot possibly imagine how the local authority representatives turned down the formula in the new Clause—

Mr. Millan: Why is my hon. Friend assuming that they turned it down?

Mr. Manuel: I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary is less dishonest than my hon. Friend thinks he is. I am assuming—I agree, only assuming—that it was turned down because the Amendments before us indicate that the case we put up has not been supported by the local authority associations.

Mr. William Baxter: Would it not be of benefit to the Committee if the Under-Secretary would give us some indication whether or not, after his consultations with the local authorities, they were in agreement with the principle in this Amendment or were in disagreement with that principle? I think we are entitled to know that so that we can better proceed with the debate.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, West (Mr. W. Baxter) that we shall certainly not depart from this until we have had the Under-Secretary's reply.
I cannot understand that they would turn down a proposition which would give an increased global sum to Scotland by way of Exchequer equalisation grant. From the contacts that I have, I know that the Ayrshire Burghs Association, which comprises seventeen burghs, among them the large burghs of Kilmarnock and Ayr, were completely unanimous. I could quote the correspondence on this, because they wrote to me and also took it up with the Scottish Office. What reply did the Secretary of State send to them when they were asking that our proposals be adopted? That is a large body of burghs—the whole of Ayrshire completely unanimous—and I am sure that this would infiltrate a little into the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) that borders Ayrshire. I am very interested in all this. I want the Under-Secretary to explain what the Amendment meant so far as apportionment was concerned once the global sum was received. Did he really explain the formula embodied in our new Clause which would have meant, if he had accepted it, a sum going to Scotland additional to the present global sum? Did he explain that fully to the Association? He agreed that the matter must go before the local authority associations.
I wish that I had the opportunity of meeting these local authority associations and putting the case to them. I cannot imagine that they would not have accepted the proposition to which we devoted so much time and so many of our speeches in Committee. I am quite sure that they would have adopted the proposals. The Under-Secretary of State may think that he has been very clever. He has not really. He has only hastened the day when possibly there will be a rather big show-down between the local authorities and the Government, if they continue long enough in office and play this sort of game.
In Committee we had quite massive support. There was not a speech which I remember against the propositions contained in the Amendment or the new Clause. There was a little doubt perhaps by the hon. Member for Galloway, but he came down in support of them; he could not go against them. I do not want to quote his speech. The hon. Member for Galloway was fully satisfied and he came down in support of them. It was the consensus of opinion that we should have a weighting of the Exchequer equalisation grant dealing with unemployment. On the Government side, we had a speech supporting them from the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. The latter retracted today—back pedalled—but he said in Committee, dealing with this Amendment and new Clause, that we should help these areas of high unemployment by giving them more Exchequer grants. He said:
I plead with my hon. Friend to look at this matter again before Report. If he does, he will save many of his loyal supporters from a great deal of embarrassment. I do not wish to discuss the merits of the case which has been well and truly made.
No wonder the hon. Member has fled from the Chamber.
Hon. Members who, like myself, spent the weekend in areas where there is high unemployment appreciate the tremendous burden in relation to it which falls upon local authorities and the people in their areas.
There we have what he said, and we have heard him today. I would also add in support the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), the hon. Member for Galloway and the hon. Member for


Aberdeenshire, West. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned, we had the final contribution from the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who was so satisfied that the Government would do something that his final conclusion was:
I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. It will give him an opportunity for consultation with the Treasury. I hope that the discussion this morning will have strengthened his hand.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1963; c. 493 and 501.]
That is where we finished that. The hon. Member, along with the rest of us, has been completely let down by agreeing to the Under-Secretary's suggestion that he should discuss it with the local authority associations. He will be telling us later, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did, that the local authorities can help themselves by setting up schemes to help unemployment which may get some grants. Very often a local authority has not the financial resources.
In the newspaper report that I mentioned, the town clerk writing to the Scottish Development Department was pointing out this very thing, that in an area so much depressed by unemployment the local authorities themselves have not the financial elbow room to start big schemes which could help to relieve unemployment in their areas. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us the details very fully of his discussions with the local authority associations and give us the reasons for not supporting especially the new Clause which would have given Scotland more money. If they knew that and deliberately turned it down they were disloyal to Scotland, and I shall take every opportunity when meeting these people, no matter what their political colour may be, of telling them so in no uncertain fashion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): In view of what has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), it might be helpful if I now try to answer the points so far put. I thought that it would be courteous to allow the three hon. Members speaking to these two Amendments and the new Clause to put their points of view before I intervened.
The effect of these proposals would be to increase the Scottish total of the Exchequer equalisation grants. In the first place, the grants would be increased directly by 5 per cent. for every 1 per cent. of registered unemployed in the year. I shall not go into the increases which would be given under the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He described it as a more equitable one, but I understand quite clearly what he meant. On the other hand, the Amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire concerns mainly distribution.
Thus, the Amendments and the new Clause would entail an increase of the Exchequer equalisation grants going to Scotland. Unemployment is a very great evil and my right hon. and hon. Friends are just as concerned about it as any other right hon. and hon. Members. Of course, the Government have done a great deal and are doing a great deal, but I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to launch today upon a general debate on unemployment in Scotland.
What we are considering here is whether it is appropriate that unemployment should be taken into account as a factor when dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grants. However great an evil unemployment is, I do not believe that it has a massive effect on local authority budgets. They are now no longer responsible for such things as public assistance and, of course, are certainly not responsible for unemployment benefit. But what may make a significant difference are capital development and council house rents.
The present arrangements for Exchequer equalisation grants ensure that the grant paid to a local authority increases proportionately with its expenditure. I want to make that clear. This means that loan charges on additional capital investment undertaken to improve basic services and provide employment attract grant at the usual rate applicable to the local authority in question. Similarly, an increase in the housing deficit due to loss of income from rent through a rebate scheme for unemployed families or others with low incomes attracts grant, except, of course, in the case of a local authority which might have a reduction made under Clause 3.
This additional grant is not at the expense of other local authorities but is a further contribution from the Exchequer, since the amount of grant payable in total is not a fixed sum but a sum which varies in proportion to relevant expenditure in each year. In other words, the Exchequer equalisation grant increases as expenditure increases.
I really think that it is difficult to say that there is a case for any further general provision in the system designed to take account of unemployment. In particular, there must be no good case for giving additional weighting to unemployment in the calculation of the aggregate of the Scottish grants, but having said that, I want to make one qualification. It is true that there may be special difficulties for authorities which suffer reductions under Clause 3 but which have to allow a large number of rebates because of unemployment. I hope, however, that we will not discuss that point at the present time.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is the only one doing so.

Mr. Leburn: But I wanted to make this qualification.

Mr. Ross: Why?

Mr. Leburn: Because I felt that it was a factor which must be mentioned. However, I do not wish to discuss it now, for we shall do so on Clause 3.
Now I want to turn to the question of the discussions I held with the local authorities. I believe that the outcome of these discussions gives me another very good reason for suggesting that the Amendment should not be accepted. As has been said, when we were considering similar Amendments in Committee upstairs I undertook to consult the local authority associations. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire suggests, I did this because of representations made—I go no further than that—by my hon. Friends the Members for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), and Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and also by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Central Ayrshire.

5.15 p.m.

I saw the local authority representatives on 29th March and discussed with them the question of unemployment weightings in respect of both the total and the dis-

tribution of the total. I assure hon. Gentlemen that there was no question of any manœuvre. There was no question of being very clever. If I say that it might be helpful or beneficial to consult the local authority associations, surely that is not a question of manoeuvre or of being clever.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will remember that at first he would not give way and that he told us so. It was only later that he manœoeuvred in order not to get beaten in Committee. He could avoid defeat only by giving way and saying that he would meet the local authorities.

Mr. Leburn: I may not be good at algebraic equations, but I can see as far through a brick wall as the hon. Gentleman can. It is perfectly usual for a Minister in Committee to discuss a point at length and then perhaps change his mind. If I look up the records I am sure that we will find that on more than one occasion during the Committee stage, having listened to further arguments by hon. Gentlemen, I changed my mind.

Mr. Willis: What the hon. Gentleman exercised his mind about was not whether or no he should accept the Amendment but whether he could find a way out of the difficulty he was in. He found a way out by suggesting that he would see the local authorities, not by accepting the overwhelming majority opinion in the Committee.

Mr. Leburn: Hon. Members opposite really have the most sinister suspicions in their minds.

Mr. Willis: We know the Tories.

Mr. Leburn: The local authority associations did not favour the introduction of a weighting for unemployment either in regard to the calculation of the aggregate or in regard to distribution. They felt that new factors tended to have unpredictable effects and led to pressure for even more new factors to be introduced. They did not think that an adjustment to equalisation grants was the way to tackle unemployment. I say that quite unequivocally. They came to this conclusion without any prompting from me. There was no question of my either manoeuvring or trying to be clever. I give the Committee that absolute assurance.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock) rose—

Mr. Leburn: I will give way in a moment.
In saying all this I am not suggesting that the local authorities were entirely happy with the present grant arrangements as they affect unemployment relief projects. They felt that they should have direct grants to projects undertaken to relieve unemployment. They made that point to me. As a matter of fact, they asked me if I would make that point quite clear in these discussions, and I am so doing. They made it clear to me that what they wanted was direct grants, but they did not think that unemployment was an appropriate factor which ought to be taken into account in the calculation of either the aggregate or the distribution of Exchequer equalisation grant. I hope that in these circumstances and in view of what I have said—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added that second bit to what he said. Are we to take it —I want the hon. Gentleman to read his words again tomorrow—that the three associations said exactly the same thing, that they said exactly what the hon. Gentleman is now reciting, because, surely, there was some difference of opinion?

Mr. Leburn: My fair understanding of the matter is that the three associations were unanimous in what I have here recited.

Mr. Willis: All this is very interesting. Of course, it arose out of the discussion on the new Clause which centres around weighting. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it does not apply to the first Amendment, which I moved. Therefore, all this about local authorities really has nothing to do with the first Amendment. That being so, I should now like the hon. Gentleman to address his answer to my first Amendment.

Mr. Leburn: The point is that, of course, I could not discuss the hon. Gentleman's Amendment with the local authority associations because I am pretty certain that at that time the Amendment was not, in fact, in existence or on the Order Paper. What I discussed with the local authority asso-

ciations was whether the weighting for unemployment should be taken into account in the calculation either of the aggregate of the Exchequer equalisation grant or in its distribution, and I have tried to give the Committee an accurate account of the views of the associations. I am bound to be swayed—this is bound to affect my decision in the matter—but I believe that I have given perfectly strong arguments over and above that as to why I could not accept this Amendment or the other one, when we come to it, and I hope that the Committee will not press it.

Mr. W. Baxter: I was for years a member of the County Councils Association for Scotland, and I cannot understand how the County Councils Association could have consulted its members and given the hon. Gentleman its considered opinion when this Amendment was withdrawn only on 5th March to enable the hon. Gentleman to consult the associations. My experience of that body, of which, as I have said, I was a member, is that it would be quite impossible to get its considered opinion in such a short time. It may be that the hon. Gentleman met one or two members of the County Council Association, but for the life of me I cannot understand how he could have got the county councils' considered opinion.

Mr. Leburn: I really cannot tell whether the associations consulted their members or not, but if my memory serves me right, I met at least thirty people—their number might have been just over or just under thirty—when they attended this meeting. Whether or not they consulted all their members I would not know.

Mr. Ross: I do not know how my hon. Friends feel, but I was disappointed though not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's speech. He will remember what I said after he made his submission to his hon. Friends, under pressure from us, in Committee. I will remind him of what I said on 5th March:
Now he proposes to discuss it with local authority associations, but he cannot promise us anything. I will promise the Committee something: when we are told about this later, the Government will have the comfortable majority of the whole House of Commons, including English and Northern Irish hon. Members. The Under-Secretary will not be faced with a relatively hostile and determined


Scottish Standing Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1963; c. 499.]
I was surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). I was surprised at his temerity in saying what he did, although I am glad that he said something about the matter rather than just walking into the Division Lobby. Time after time in his speech he declared himself absolutely convinced of the Tightness of the principle put forward. Indeed, he went further than many of his own hon. Friends. He said in Committee that the new Clause and the Amendment went together, that the new Clause would give a greater aggregate in respect of unemployment and that the Amendment would give a fairer division in relation to unemployment. He further said that the principle was unquestionable. He spoke about unemployment in Ballater.
One of the weaknesses of the present position and the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's speech is the assumption that everyone gets Exchequer equalisation grant. With the financial burden of unemployment not being met at all, it means that those with seasonal unemployment are ruled out. This was the point which the hon. Gentleman made. Let him answer that one to himself in relation to the speech which he made today. He said there was no argument at all about it.
I note that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is muttering away on the benches opposite. I do not know whether he is in a hurry to get somewhere, but I can tell him that I am not going away. He will no doubt get an opportunity to make a speech. The hon. Gentleman divided one of his speeches into two parts. The first was the fact that the effect of unemployment would be to create a burden on the local authority. Now he tries to swivel out of it. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he is now quite satisfied because his hon. Friend is going to do something about rent rebates.

Sir F. Maclean: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Ross: We shall see what kind of speech the hon. Gentleman will make.
We have given two possible causes to the Under-Secretary in relation to what,

to my mind, is absolutely essential—an increase in the global figure for distribution. There is one matter, of course, which he has not answered at all. It was the point made in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to increase by 5 per cent. in respect of over 1 per cent. of unemployment in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that that would cost £5 million. Is there any local authority in Scotland or local authority association in Scotland which would refuse an increase in the global figure of Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland? Yet we are told that the hon. Gentleman discussed it with the county council associations and that they turned it down. I wish that I had been there to hear what was said. He must have put his case to them as unconvincingly as he has put it to the Committee today.
In actual fact, of course, before the hon. Gentleman went to the Scottish local authorities on this matter he had one other journey to make. But it was a journey that he would not even promise us that he would make. He could not offer the local authorities an increased total. He knows quite well that it is the Treasury which would do that. I should like to have heard what kind of discussions went on with the Scottish local authorities. I have no doubt that discussions took place, but I know quite well that the hon. Gentleman got the decision he wanted.
The whole Scottish Standing Committee was convinced about this matter, including hon. Members opposite who are now busy either running away or thinking out speeches which will give them another line of retreat. The Under-Secretary made his gesture and promised to do something about it because he could have been defeated in Standing Committee. The whole Scottish Standing Committee was convinced, and even the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) joined in the battle.

5.30 p.m.

The weakness of the equalisation grant at present is that we try to relate the rate burden in Scotland to that in England. We have had speech after speech from the Under-Secretary to say that we are a little better off because the rate burden per head of population is about £2 10s. less than it is in England and Wales. But the rate burden per head of the population


does not mean a thing. In the calculation of equalisation grant we take into account the fact that it would be unfair to consider population alone and so we have weighted population—children under 15, and miles of roads and so on. What we are saying now is that there is another factor which must be taken into account —unemployment.

For more than twenty years, certainly since the war and long before it, unemployment in Scotland has been double that in England. There was a dramatic fall in the unemployment figures in England the other week, but there was no such change in Scotland. The headlines in the Scottish Daily Mail said that the tide had turned, but the tide will come back in and the tide of unemployment in Scotland always comes in further than it did the time before and never goes quite so far out, and it still further erodes what is left of Scottish employment every time it comes in. How far did the tide go out in Glasgow? There was a reduction in unemployment of 382; in Dumbarton, a reduction of 80; in Renfrewshire—I am sorry that the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has gone and I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East is not here, because the reduction of unemployment in Renfrewshire when the tide turned so dramatically was 33; the reduction in Ayrshire was 545.

All those are areas where local authorities are being urged by their Government to spend money to create employment. But if they spend money and part of it is not met by grant, no matter how small a part, there is an additional rate burden and that residual part is even greater if the global sum for division among local authorities is not increased. It has got to the stage where local authorities cannot afford expenditures which they would like to afford, because they cannot raise the rates. This was accepted by the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire in Standing Committee and by every other hon. Member opposite. It is still true today and nothing has happened to unemployment in Scotland in the past two or three months to rob what we then suggested of its virtue. But the Government are prepared to do nothing and hon. Members opposite have changed and are prepared

to allow the Government to do nothing. We still have 114,000 unemployed and it looks as though in Scotland we will enter the summer with what we used to think was a disastrous figure for winter unemployment. Hon. Members opposite should make up their minds about whether they want action from the Government.

The Under-Secretary said that unemployment was an evil. That was a change, because in Standing Committee he said that it was a scourge. He said that the Government were doing a lot. We can now see exactly how much they are doing and how much they have been doing when unemployment is double what it was 10 or 11 years ago. They are far too easily satisfied and here is a chance for them to do something and to get something more from the Treasury to help local authorities who would spend the money on public works. Hon. Members opposite have joined with us in pressing the Government for the implementing of schemes of public works run by local authorities. What restrains local authorities is the lack of Government grant.
The Government do a little. They have asked authorities in certain areas to proceed with schemes costing £15,000 or less and which could be started in a short time and finished in six months. I presume that they are all started, but we still have the highest April figure for unemployment for twenty-three years. The Under-Secretary said that he was not satisfied that unemployment was a relevant factor. I am satisfied that it is. Unemployment has a depressive effect on the whole area. It affects commerce and business. If the rateable value of shops fails, the income to local authorities is correspondingly lower.

The hon. Gentleman said that there were only factors. He said that one was local authority housing and rents and the other was capital expenditure. We accept capital expenditure, but is he saying that all the unemployed live in corporation houses? Do they not pay rates when they are living in private houses? What we are considering are not rents but the rate burden which is the sole criterion for equalisation grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) got some interesting figures yesterday about the rate burden


for corporation houses. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not here. The rate burden of corporation houses in Shetland is about 3s. 2d., but in Kilmarnock, which is to lose £12,000 a year of equalisation grant by the Bill, it is 15s. 7d. That has to be added to the rent to get the burden. Kilmarnock and every other authority troubled with unemployment has to look twice at any expenditure.

The situation can be improved only by direct grant, but when have right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever done anything about direct grants? It was right hon. Gentlemen opposite who introduced the block grant for education and certain other expenditures, and authorities have to rely on the equalisation grant for other items although many of them get nothing.

If there is anything which is relevant to local authority expenditure or to a reduction in local authority income it is unemployment. We proved our case in Standing Committee and we have proved it again today. We have given the Government two choices, the Amendment or the new Clause. We are at the stage where we are prepared to accept anything from the Government, but we are not prepared to accept nothing. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue the debate to convince the Government that we want action on unemployment to enable local authorities to do everything they can to reduce the level of unemployment and the distress it causes.

Sir F. Maclean: In Committee upstairs I spoke with approval of the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). If anything could make me change my mind on such an important question of principle it would be the hon. Gentleman's approach to this whole subject today. One says that one has to be grateful for small mercies. One of the small mercies for which I am always grateful is that it never fell to my lot to sit at the feet of the hon. Gentleman in any educational establishment. I cannot think of a worse fate.

Mr. Ross: I was glad never to be a soldier under the hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. Maclean: We both had lucky escapes.
The hon. Gentleman has not, and I am sure that he is glad not to have, the Highland manner to which his hon. Friend referred, certainly not if the Highland manner consists, as is sometimes said, in the desire to please. The hon. Gentleman certainly does not have that.
In Committee upstairs I thought that the hon. Gentleman's new Clause was complementary to the Amendment that I moved. I still think that that is the case, and I therefore propose to support it in the Lobby. Like other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I am a great believer in incentives, and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the new Clause provides an incentive to the Government to reduce unemployment in Scotland. I personally think that by the application of various incentives we have already achieved some measure of success in this respect. For instance, by constant badgering the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and I have succeeded in getting an advance factory for the Kilwinning industrial estate. I also thought that the Budget went some way to meeting Scotland's needs, and I finally think that we have achieved a partial success at any rate with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the shape of the Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend.
Although in his speech my hon. Friend did not seem to accept the fact, the Amendment seems to recognise that an additional burden is inevitably placed on local authorities by the existence of high unemployment in their areas and I do not see how my hon. Friend can argue to the contrary. In my constituency there is no doubt that apart from the whole question of rent rebates, which we discussed in Committee upstairs and which seems to have been met by my right hon. Friend's Amendment, there are other expenses which inevitably fall on local authorities in areas where there is a high rate of unemployment. In my constituency, and in that of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, the local authorities have gone to great trouble and expense to try an all-out campaign to reduce unemployment and to attract new industry to the area.
I said a short time ago that as a Tory I believed in incentives. I also believe in keeping down Government expenditure, and it seems to me that with any luck this new Clause will have that effect too, in that if unemployment is really reduced —and we have been told by successive Secretaries of State for Scotland that they will not rest until unemployment is brought down to the United Kingdom rate—there will not be any additional expenditure involved and everybody will be pleased. Therefore, for these reasons, and in spite of the offensive approach of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock which I shall not call a Lowland approach, because Lowlanders are just as kindly and anxious to please as Highlanders, I propose to vote for the new Clause.

5.45 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on his decision to support the new Clause because his decision is in line with what he said in Committee upstairs. I was not a member of that Committee but I was sufficiently interested in what was happening to read its proceedings.
I am surprised that the other critic of the Government, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), has decided today that he cannot support the new Clause. His decision surprised me after I read what he said in Committee, but I was even more surprised after reading an article written by the hon. Member in the Inverurie and District Advertiser of 15th March, 1963. Speaking about the Bill, and about the new Clause, he said:
Several other members, including that formidable fighter, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, said much the same thing, and to save himself from being defeated on a vote, Mr. Leburn had to give in.
I am glad that that formidable fighter is still a fighter and willing to stick to what he believes should be done to help local authorities in areas of high unemployment. But the hon. Member for Abardeenshire, West, no doubt because he had received a number of letters from constituents, felt that he had to make a further explanation in his article, and he went on to say:
A lot of burghs, such as Ballater do not get any of this money, because they have high valuations and so are not supposed to need it. Some of us, and indeed after the debate most of us, thought that the number of people

unemployed, especially in the winter, should be taken into account. That would mean the Treasury finding more money and that is a thing they hate doing.
I suppose the Treasury still hate doing it now, a month after this article was written, but something has made the hon. Gentleman change his mind. He went on to say, and this is printed in heavier type:
It is only by putting very severe pressure on the Government that a bit more can be squeezed out of the stony-hearted keepers of the nation's purse.
Where is that pressure today? What has happened to the hon. Gentleman's courage? It seems to have evaporated completely. He is willing to let the Government go ahead now, even though he said in that article that the Undersecretary of State for Scotland was afraid of being defeated and had therefore decided to reconsider the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman said in his article:
We were convinced that we were demanding justice for our constituents, and that is why we used such strong measures.
What has happened to that conviction? Where has it gone?

Mr. Hendry: I think the hon. Lady will agree that it would be out of order at this stage to mention my right hon. Friend's Amendment in Clause 3, which makes a great difference to the situation.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member ought to know that the Government Amendment to Clause 3 will do little to compensate areas of high unemployment. This seems to be just a get-out or a face-saver for his having changed his mind. This mild Government Amendment helps so little that it is negligible. I hope that the hon. Member will have second thoughts about the matter before we vote upon it.
He seems to know a great deal about the present Chancellor and future Chancellors, because in this article he went on to tell us what my hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor had been saying, and to frighten the people of his constituency by saying:
Not only stocks and shares and money in the bank but homes and furniture will all have to be returned to the Socialists' inquisitors.
He delves right down to the bottom of the sewer, trying to get some credit for his Government and to denigrate the


Socialist Opposition. He will discover, as he discovered elsewhere, that the Scottish voters are intelligent people and that the further he delves into the sewers the less support he will get from those people. I am certain that that will be made plain to him in West Aberdeenshire in the next election.
Unemployment in Scotland is now very serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) drew a comparison between the unemployment situation in April, 1963, and April, 1951-—the last year of the Labour Government. Today in Scotland there are still 114,199 men and women unemployed. But that is not the whole picture. There are far more men unemployed than there are women—6 per cent. of the men as against 3·8 per cent. of the women. In the majority of cases the men are the people who provide the money to run the home.
There has been much talk about rent rebates. The Government Amendment to which I have referred deals only with that question. There is a very high rate of unemployment in my county of Lanark, and there are many people who receive no rent rebates but who are given rate relief. I do not know how prevalent this practice is in other areas, but it is the result of unemployment. The rent rebate Amendment that the Undersecretary will later move will not help those people at all. The situation obtaining in areas of high unemployment requires the acceptance either of the Amendment or the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In April, 1951, we had 54,667 people unemployed. That means that in the last year of the Labour Government we had only 47 per cent. of the number of unemployed that we have in April, 1963—after twelve years of Tory Government. I hope that the people of West Aberdeenshire will note that fact.
I want to make a last quotation from the hon. Member's article. In it he was trying to save his face. He went on to say:
But the vital thing is that we should be unwavering in our loyalty to the Unionist Party, which is the only possible alternative to the horrors of Socialism.
Yet in 1951 the figure of unemployed was only 47 per cent. of what it is

today. If these are horrors, I know that the unemployed people in my constituency would rather be living with those horrors of 1951 than in the circumstances of 1963. The hon. Member went on to say:
The only way to avoid such a disaster is to work for the return once again of the Unionist Party, which through good times and bad, has kept the country prosperous and free.
Prosperous? Is Scotland prosperous today, with 114,000 of its good men and women unemployed? It is shocking for an hon. Member so to underestimate the intelligence and the sense of decency and fair play of the Scottish people that he should think that such a statement can be accepted by anyone there.

Mr. Manuel: I bet the hon. Member wishes that he had not written that article.

Miss Herbison: I ask the Undersecretary to pay no attention to any loss of support from a Member who can write such an article. I ask him to pay more attention to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who at least has the guts and the courage to stick to what he believes will help areas of high unemployment. I hope that the Undersecretary will accept either the Amendment or the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. Let him not turn down both.

Mr. John Robertson: I agree with the Under-Secretary that none of these Amendments will provide a solution to the unemployment problem. No one on this side of the Committee has suggested that it would. I also agree that this method of increasing the amount of equalisation grant coming to Scotland is not an ideal one. But we are faced with the difficulty that this is now the only method left to us. We must try to increase the amount of money that Scotland is getting in order to make up for what she has been losing for many years.
The amount of money that has been lost to Scotland is not £5 million; it is about £30 million. That is what Scotland would have had if the principles surrounding the equalisation grant had been properly applied. I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In


1961, the rates levied per head of population were higher in Scotland than in England—£18 1s. per head as against £17 4s. per head in England. Even then the equalisation grant paid to Scotland did not achieve its purpose.
The ability to pay rates should have an effect upon the amount of grant paid to any part of the British Isles. The existence of unemployment in any area is obviously a good reason for channelling the grant into that area. The Under-Secretary was telling us that increases in expenditure mean increases in grant. Good gracious! We cannot believe that, after reading last week how the Scottish Office slashed the school building programmes of all the education authorities. The Scottish Office effectively controls expenditure. It has always been notable that, per head of population, the expenditure of Scottish local authorities has been singularly less than that in England and Wales.
The remarkable fact is that the English counterpart of the Scottish Office is far more lenient, shall we say—more realistic, perhaps—than is the Scottish Office. It is not good enough to tell us that we get more grants if we spend more money. There is a rigid control over the money that Scottish local authorities can spend.

6.0 p.m.

I should imagine that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has said, where there is a depressed area and a high figure of unemployment the resources to pay rates are much less. Do not forget that as well as the numbers of unemployed it is necessary to bear in mind that there are other people, not registered as unemployed, who work a considerable amount of short time. It is also relevant to this argument, quite apart from anything else, to remember that even people who are working receive considerably less remuneration than people working south of the Border. Obviously, therefore, where there is a high rate of unemployment and a considerable amount of short-time working the people are less able to pay high rates. But in Scotland the rates are significantly higher than in England and Wales.

Let us dwell for a moment on the question of the distribution of the equalisation grant. During the Committee stage

proceedings we got some figures from the Minister about the amount of grant per head of population paid in England and Wales compared with what was paid in Scotland. This is a good way to measure the matter only if the Minister accepts the premise that Scotland has resources equal to those of England, and that is nonsense. Where does the money go when it is distributed in England? It goes to the depressed areas, to the North, to Wales and to the south-west of England. If the Minister would care to check the figures—they are available for England and Wales; they are, of course, never available for Scotland—he will find that the equalisation grant in the non-county boroughs and the counties in the north of England is equivalent to 35 per cent. of the rating values. In Scotland, the large burghs and the industrial counties receive 16 or 17 per cent.

The significant point is that Scotland, and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, should not come begging for this money. It is theirs by right, and by this method. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, so far as it goes. But I cannot think of any other way, when dealing with this Bill, of getting a little more to help the Scottish ratepayers. Local authorities cannot undertake the extra jobs that require to be done in Scotland because Scotland needs a "face lift". More money is needed to be spent by local authorities. That is self evident and does not mean arguing.

But the authorities cannot undertake this work because of the burden of the rates. That burden is far higher in Scotland than in England and already it is as high as people are prepared to accept, at least without protest. Any local authority which undertook extra work which resulted in the rates being increased would be faced with a problem at election time. After all, local authorities and councillors are no different from Members of Parliament like, let us say, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was making an electioneering point. Local councillors have to face the electors and they cannot afford to carry out work unless there is an extra Government grant forthcoming to meet the cost of it. I cannot see local authorities even considering doing work in the present circumstances.

It may well be, as the Secretary of State said recently, that the Scots will have to help themselves more and not always be running to the Government. Are we to pull ourselves up by our bootlaces? It is obvious that we must get some help. It is relevant to the distribution of Government grants, both general grant and equalisation grant, that the areas with which we are dealing should have a high unemployment figure. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point at all. If he was speaking theoretically of the best way to deal with the equalisation grant I might agree with him. But we have to deal with the situation as it is today and he brought forward no proposals for increasing the amount of the equalisation grant coming to Scotland, although he could easily have done so. To suggest that discussions with the associations of local authorities in Scotland had convinced him that they had agreed to consider the number of unemployed as a weighting factor in the distribution of the equalisation grant, is preposterous. His first job was to see the Treasury. But the hon. Gentleman has given no indication that he has seen the Treasury.

Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are often accused of being slightly nationalistic and parochial in their outlook. In relation to Exchequer grants to local authorities, I have never come across a more nationalistic and parochial outlook than that adopted by English Ministers who simply refuse to give us the money that we should have. The fact is that if there is to be any equity in the distribution of the grant at all, Great Britain must be considered as a whole.

The resources of Scottish local authorities must be compared with those of English authorities. If that were done in the way in which it should be done, the total amount paid at present in rate deficiency grants and equalisation grants would almost all—80 per cent. of it—go to Scotland. That is a measure of the state of poverty of Scottish local authorities. That, again, is the burden imposed on Scottish ratepayers.

The Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend have made a poor job of putting across the case for Scottish local authorities. If they consider that they

want more assistance to convince the Treasury that more Government grants should go to Scotland, we will see whether we can arrange something. They have not done a good job. I would not mind had they admitted defeat. But to tell this Committee that Scotland is receiving her fair share of grant is too preposterous for words. Obviously, unemployment affects the ability of Scottish local authorities to carry out their ordinary jobs. Where it is persistent, and on a high level, it should become a weighting factor in determining not only the internal distribution of grant in Scotland, but also the global sum.

We shall be dealing later with another aspect of determining what the global sum should be, but there can be no good argument against the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) or the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Whatever any local authority may think about the method of distribution of the global sum—and I may be prepared to agree that some difficulty may arise there—I cannot imagine them seeing any difficulty about increasing the size of the global sum.

I suggest that the Under-Secretary should not come to the Committee and apologise time after time for his right hon. and hon. Friends of the Treasury. He should go back and fight for more instead of making excuses which are quite unacceptable.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to you, Sir William, for calling me again, because I think it only fair that I should be called in view of the attack which was made upon me by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). It is true that I wrote an article containing the passages which she read to the Committee, but I suggest to the hon. Lady that she read them completely out of context.

Miss Herbison: No.

Mr. Hendry: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the tenor of the article was that very often pressure caused the Government to change their policy when that was a good thing to do. I then contrasted criticism of the Government on lines of that sort with


the alternative, when I spoke of "horror", and pointed out that in sum total we must support our party.

Miss Herbison: That is exactly what I quoted.

Mr. Hendry: Let us see what effect the pressure brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and I in Committee had, The effect was that the Minister went to the local authority organisations and obtained their view and then went to the Treasury. At least, we presume that he went to the Treasury, and had a great amount of success there. Otherwise, he could not have put down the Amendment to Clause 3, which it is not in order for us to discuss at the moment, but which, I suggest, is a very great triumph for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Millan: If it is a great triumph for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), is it not extraordinary that he should be supporting our Amendment?

Mr. Hendry: I am not speaking for my hon. Friend, but for myself. I think that right and proper. I expressed the opinion that it was a triumph, not for my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire but for the Under-Secretary. I still think that it was a triumph for him to produce that Amendment, but it would not be in order for us to discuss it now. Therefore, I say no more about it.
Quite apart from that, my hon. Friend got the advice from the local authority organisations that they did not want unemployment raised as a weighting factor in connection with equalisation grant. Why they came to that decision I do not know, but they are responsible people. Hon. Members opposite frequently press the Under-Secretary to consult those organisations. Having consulted them, he has, very rightly, acted upon their advice.
There is only one thing which concerns me very deeply about this whole matter. It is that some local authorities do not qualify for the equalisation grant. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who, I am sorry to see, is not now present, gave a very unfortunate example. He spoke of local authorities which, I understand, do

qualify for the equalisation grant. If a local authority has a high level of unemployment, and incurs substantial expenditure in trying to meet the position, the chances are that it will qualify for the equalisation grant as the law now stands.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I refer to the first speech made in this debate by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), when he was discussing the merits of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the new Clause which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West seemed completely to miss the point, because the basis of that Amendment and the new Clause is to seek to attract more money to Scotland, whereas the points he made dealt with redistribution of the existing Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. While we welcome the subsequent Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), which will have the effect of altering the distribution, we are principally concerned at this stage with increasing the amount of money to be attracted to Scotland if the Amendment and the new Clause are accepted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the speech of the Under-Secretary was not surprising, but none the less all the more disappointing. The hon. Gentleman said nothing new on this problem, which we discussed at great length in Standing Committee. He dealt very sparsely with the arguments advanced for increasing the amount of grant coming to Scotland. He paid lip service to the sad position arising from unemployment in Scotland and said that it was a great evil about which all his hon. Friends were very much concerned. He went on to say that the Government have done a great deal to alleviate the unemployment position in Scotland.
In the areas which I represent, and which have been scheduled as development districts since 7th May, 1962, not a single new job has come about. If we are to regard that as the measure of the


Government's ability to help the employment position in Scotland, it is a miserable record and we have no fear of a General Election. In fact, we would welcome one next week, for then we could take control and show exactly what should be done.
The Under-Secretary went on to suggest that unemployment was not a good subject as a factor in the calculation of Exchequer grant. He referred to the fact that local authorities are no longer responsible for Public Assistance or unemployment relief, but, as my hon. Friends have indicated, the whole basis of living in such an area is altered when there is high unemployment. Shopkeepers feel the draught because of the smaller amount of spending power in the area. Those still in employment are always looking over their shoulders wondering when their turn will come to sign on at the employment exchange. The amount of spending power in the area goes down considerably, and shopkeepers have to close down their businesses.
There are very good reasons why unemployment should be regarded as a factor in the calculation and the distribution of the grant. The Under-Secretary said that he had had consultations with the local authority associations. I wonder exactly what proportion of the total number of persons present in those negotiations—he said that 30 were present—were elected representatives. I should guess that it was a very small proportion. I wonder to what extent those who were elected representatives had the opportunity of discussing their views on these two particular points.
I cannot imagine any member of my local authorities, whether on one side of the council chamber or the other, refusing to accept additional income for Scotland for redistribution. I therefore am at a great loss to understand the reasons which the elected representatives could advance to the hon. Member that our proposals were completely unacceptable. I am afraid that the local authorities' full-time officials, for some reason or another best known to themselves, have persuaded the hon. Member not to accept these proposals.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am supporting the Amendment, because at present my authority does not receive

any equalisation grant. The effect of both the Amendment and the new Clause is to increase the amount of money going to Scotland, and under present circumstances this would be of no immediate benefit to my local authority. As I have pointed out on many previous occasions, this situation arises from the revaluation which took place in 1961. The Fife and Dunbarton county assessors used a basis of valuation completely different from the other Scottish assessors.
From figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, we find that, as a result of revaluation, Kirkcaldy has the highest average rate burden per local authority house of any authority in Scotland with the exception of the City of Glasgow and the Burgh of Clydebank. The average rate burden per local authority house in Kirkcaldy is 16s. 8d. per week. In Dunfermline, it is 16s. 9d., and in Dumbarton 16s. 6d. When we compare those figures with the lowest average rate burden per local authority house in Scotland we come to Wick, with a weekly rate burden of 6s., Caithness with a weekly rate burden of 5s. 4d., and Orkney, which is down to 3s. 2d.
In the document circulated by the Secretary of State in January of this year, giving the rent levels of local authorities as at November, 1962, we find that the lowest weekly average rent of a municipal house in Scotland is in Orkney at 5s. 9d. a week. This gives a total weekly average payment for the local authority tenant in Orkney of 8s. 11d. per week. No wonder the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not require to attend the Committee today to defend the position under the Bill. When we compare this figure with that for Kirkcaldy, we discover that the average tenant in a municipal house in Kirkcaldy is paying 16s. 9d. in rent and 16s. 8d. in rates, a total of 33s. 5d., possibly the highest weekly average payment of tenants throughout Scotland.
We discover that in Orkney the Exchequer equalisation grant received is equivalent to 85 per cent. of the total relevant expenditure, whereas Kirkcaldy receives no Exchequer grant at all. The average gross annual value of the local authority house in Orkney is £22 as opposed to the gross annual value in Kirkcaldy of £54.
I suggest that we get the assessors in Orkney and Fife to exchange places at the next revaluation and see whether they cannot help to iron out the anomalies which have arisen from the recent revaluation. They are very pertinent to the argument before the Committee, because valuation plays a great part in the distribution of the Exchequer grant and would also play a part in the distribution of the additional money if the Amendment and the new Clause were accepted.
We must bear in mind the effect of unemployment in these areas, where the average earnings are about £8 to £10 a week. This is a very low wage. When we bear in mind the various deductions from wages we see that the take-home pay is very low, particularly in the linoleum industry, which is going through a very bad period at present. The hon. Member knows the position and he must realise that as a result of closures about 600 people may become unemployed. Kirkcaldy will have a tremendous problem of trying to attract new industries to employ the large number of people who are unemployed, but no additional money is coming to the local authority so far by way of additional grant to help it in its task of seeking new industry.
At the same time, the Minister has been persuading the various local authorities to undertake other schemes of not more than £15,000 to create employment. My authority is having to undertake schemes without any grant, and this does not give encouragement to the authority to extend this additional type of work. I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that he should be as bold as he was on the previous discussion and again change his mind. He should speak up for Scotland and give the local authorities the additional money which they so richly deserve.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am delighted to intervene in the early stages of the debate, for I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) will want to speak. We had the four rebels on the other side in Committee. Let us be fair to them; they exacted from the Under-Secretary of State the facilities for this debate, because we should perhaps have had a vote in Committee, and perhaps the Chair would not have selected

the Amendment in that event, if it had been tabled again. Perhaps that would have been an end of the matter. One of my hon. Friends suggests that we should have won the vote, and I am of the same opinion as, I think, is the Under-Secretary of State, although he denied it today and said that he wanted genuinely to consult the local authorities.
This is my first complaint: if this is consultation with the local authorities, then I shall never again listen to this argument in Committee, because I believe that we have heard a completely fraudulent position expounded. Let us look at the procedure. The Under-Secretary of State, under pressure—he admitted it himself in his second or third speech in Committee—with four declared rebels, admitted to the Committee that perhaps he might think about the matter again and that he would call together the local authority associations. That was on 5th March. By the end of March the conference had taken place, and the Government had their Amendment on the Order Paper before we rose for the Easter Recess when our debate was scheduled to take place. Another matter arose and the debate was postponed until tonight.
It therefore follows that if we had the promise of 5th March and all these things followed, it must have been very quick consultation. I know that the Corporation of Greenock was not consulted for its views in these matters. Being the second largest burgh in Scotland, and having suffered, and still suffering, from possibly the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom, we ought to have been consulted on a matter such as this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) asks why we were not consulted. I do not know. This is indeed the question which I am about to put. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us, not just for the sake of the argument on this Amendment but for the sake of any future argument on any subject which involves consultation with local authorities, exactly how this procedure operates? My feeling is that this so-called conference with local authority representatives was made up of men who were not mandated to discuss anything. In fact, I go further and say that these men did not understand what they were discussing. I therefore submit that the Under-Secretary of State either did not appreciate that


fact or else he took these innocent lambs to the slaughter.
The first proposition which they were asked to discuss was that the total grant coming to Scotland should be larger because of Scottish unemployment. I still find it incredible that a group of 50 Scotsmen, of whatever political party or in whoever's pay they might be—the town councils', big business, trade unions or anything else—would say that Scotland needs no more money to relieve unemployment. That was a stupid argument for hon. Members opposite to advance.

6.30 p.m.

I ask the Under-Secretary a straight question. Did he invite the local authority associations to consider the proposition that, because of the high unemployment in the development areas of Scotland, it was reasonable that the Government should increase the total amount of Exchequer equalisation grant going to Scotland? There are two points to be discussed—the total grant and its distribution. I do not deny that the Scots are an argumentative lot. They tend to be anxious to look after their own communities. I regard this as a virtue, not a vice. I could understand the Under-Secretary saying to us, "They fought among themselves about the distribution". I concede that they could arrive at a complete deadlock over the system of distribution among themselves, but I am not prepared to accept that the representatives of the local authority associations refused an increase in the total grant.

I should like the Under-Secretary to give us the answers to these questions. What was the date of the meeting? Who were the representatives? Did they have a mandate? Did they discus this specific point? The Under-Secretary may recall that I interrupted his speech earlier in the debate and asked him if the words he was using were the exact words of unanimity that the meeting adopted. This will be an important post mortem in the history of consultation between the Government and Scottish local authorities. Few of us will rest until we get to the bottom of what happened at this meeting. Never since Sir Anthony Eden met the French Prime Minister has there been a more peculiar meeting to decide a very important matter.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has twice given us an apologia as to why he has shifted his ground. Even the hon. Gentleman is wondering what happened at this meeting. In Standing Committee the hon. Gentleman said this about unemployment:
Previously hon. Members opposite tried to relieve it"—
that is, the problem of unemployment—
by adjusting the rents of local authority houses. I was not convinced that that was the right way to proceed. I am sure that if there is a burden the burden should be relieved by a measure which will benefit the general body of ratepayers and not a selective body like housing scheme tenants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 28th February. 1963; c. 466–7.]

This is a fundamental point. The hon. Member has shifted his ground completely, but I do not know why. I could not quite follow his argument. I could not understand why he was so persuaded. However, this was his assertion. It was an assertion in complete contradiction to that made by the Under-Secretary. This is a matter into which I went in some detail during the Recess. I went round various parts of my constituency and compared the changes in valuation and the changes in rate burden of unemployed tenants in different houses. We have quite a selection of unemployed people to choose from. The Under-Secretary's argument was, "Let us not give relief by reducing the loss of Exchequer equalisation grant because of unemployment, because unemployed live not only in council houses but in all kinds of houses". The hon. Gentleman said in Standing Committee:
There are unemployed also in owner-occupied houses and in tenanted houses privately owned. This proposal does not take into account the financial circumstances of those people who are living in houses which are either owner-occupied or tenanted and privately owned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 19th February, 1963; c. 313.]

This is a most peculiar argument. I have tried to follow it as loyally and faithfully as I can to see where its body of substance lies. I still do not appreciate it. If a local authority, because of unemployment, spends money and is compensated to some extent by various direct grants from the Board of Trade or elsewhere, no one denies that the local authority, because it has spent this money, even though it has received grants, still has a deficit on that expenditure. It still


has to raise money from its ratepayers. If it has to raise money from its ratepayers, the question whether there is a deficit in the housing account of this size or that size is irrelevant. The fact is that all the ratepayers in the town have to find the extra finance.

Where I believe the Under-Secretary is confusing himself is that he is not seeing that, although the Bill is designed as a negative mechanism by which to raise rents, it also effects the—even to his mind—admirable town councils which raise rents to the level he wants. If they have unemployment and behave exactly as he wants them to behave, he still penalises them by being unable to recognise the argument about unemployment and the concession on Exchequer equalisation grant. If my town council does exactly what the Under-Secretary wants, it loses £13,000 in Exchequer equalisation grant. If we do not do what the Under-Secretary wants, we still lose £13,000 in Exchequer equalisation grant. Therefore, it does not matter. It is an internal affair for Greenock to decide about its rents, because of the way the Government have constructed the Exchequer equalisation grant.

This concession on unemployment is relevant. I do not care how small it is—we need the money, and we want the money. We think we are entitled to the money, because there are ratepayers in my town who are being asked to carry a national burden. The Under-Secretary argues that if one wants to help an unemployed man who has a high rent and who lives in a council house the best thing to do is to ask the other council house tenants to pay for it. That is the logic of the Under-Secretary's argument. He now takes it a step further and says that in a town where there is unemployment all the ratepayers must join in helping the unemployed and that Bournemouth can escape. Was not the idea of the Exchequer equalisation grant that local authorities which are well off can be balanced against local authorities which are badly off? Bournemouth was the great example which was always cited.

This is a breach of that principle. By deceiving the Committee upstairs into accepting that he was genuinely going to consult the Scottish local authorities and, through the associations, find the popular opinion among the town councils, he has

done a grave disservice to his own country.

I should like the Under-Secretary to answer one last question. Did the Scottish Office, either his right hon. Friend or himself, take this matter up with the Treasury? I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. Did he take this matter up with the Treasury? If he did not, how could he have discussed it with the local authority associations? If he did, will he confirm again that the local authority associations refused an increase in the total Exchequer equalisation grant to Scotland?

Mr. Leburn: I think that I clearly see the difference there is between myself and certain other Members of the Committee. There has been a great deal of discussion about unemployment in Scotland. I make no complaint about that. However, the weight of the discussion, as I see it, is that suggestions have been made that the Government are not doing sufficient to relieve unemployment for Scotland. I shall not say at this stage whether I agree with that or not. I believe that this is a matter which could more appropriately be dealt with during a debate on unemployment generally.
I want to say this, in passing. While it may be that unemployment in Scotland is double that in the rest of the United Kingdom and while it may be that a great deal must be done to alleviate the evil of unemployment, I believe that in the last few weeks and months great things have been done. I have not gat all the facts and figures before me and I shall not recite or rehearse a catalogue of what has been done. Hon. Members opposite know just as well as I do that a great many things have been done and very important announcements have been made in the last few days and weeks. I can count up in my head about £30 million additional money committed for Scotland within a comparatively short time.
It may be that extra grants, be they direct or otherwise, have to be given. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his Budget speech made a very important announcement as to additional grants being made available for the clearance of derelict sites.


This is the sort of grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is absolutely true. They are going up from 50 per cent. to between 85 and 90 per cent. It is up to the local authorities to submit their schemes and I will encourage them to do that.

Miss Herbison: If the local authorities put up schemes and the Treasury decides that too much money would be used, will every local authority be told that their schemes cannot be proceeded with, just as they have been told in relation to schemes for much needed new school building?

Mr. Leburn: I have made it clear on many previous occasions that I am encouraging local authorities to put up schemes for grants in regard to this and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent out a circular inviting local authorities to put in their demands. That is not necessarily to say that absolutely every scheme will be approved. They will have to show that they are good schemes which can stand on their merits.
As I said originally—and I do not propose to go over this again—it may be that, in another debate, hon. Members can adduce a case for help being given to relieve unemployment in Scotland. All I have said is that I do not think that giving some additional amount in Exchequer equalisation grant is the appropriate way of doing it. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, because I want to deal with the questions put to me, particularly that about the meeting I had with the local authority associations.
I promised to consult the local authority associations. I consulted them on 29th March; the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked for the date. I do not want to deceive anyone about this. I clearly got the impression from that meeting—and if I am wrong then I am wrong—that when I put the case to the associations, the three of them, they did not wish an unemployment weighting factor to be taken into account in Exchequer equalisation grant, either in regard to the calculation of the total, or to the distribution. I cannot be more clear about it than that.

Mr. Manuel: Did the Under-Secretary explain the formula contained in our proposed new Clause? Did he give the amount by which Scotland would

benefit in addition to the present global sum, as it were?

Mr. Leburn: It was the question of the principle of the weighting factor which was discussed. I could not discuss the proposal of, I think, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). That hon. Member said that his proposal would give another £5 million. On the other hand, hon. Members who are taking a different line might suggest that the Exchequer equalisation grant should be increased to, say, 100 per cent. for every 1 per cent., which would bring £50 million to Scotland. I discussed with them the desirability or otherwise of introducing a weighting factor into the calculation for Exchequer equalisation grant, both in regard to the calculation of the aggregate going to Scotland and to its distribution.

Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary used the phrase "I clearly got the impression" about the local authority associations being against it. Did they not tell him if they were against it, one way or the other? Did he put to them the proposal in the proposed new Clause, which is identical to the new Clause my hon. Friends moved in Committee, to the effect that there should be an additional weighting for Scotland in relation to the unemployment rate there being in excess of the level in England and Wales?

Mr. Leburn: I am quite clear that the local authority associations understood that point. The hon. Member queries what I meant by "I clearly got the impression". I wish to be categorical about this. The members of the three local authority associations which attended the meeting told me that they did not think that a weighting factor for unemployment should be taken into account in the calculation of Exchequer equalisation grant either way—the aggregate or the distribution.

Mr. McInnes: Did the hon. Gentleman say to the local authority associations quite clearly that unemployment would be a factor in the calculation of the grant and that that would necessarily increase the global figure? Did he put it that way and, having put it that way, did they say that they did not want it?

Mr. Leburn: I am quite clear in my mind that the local authorities understood the proposition.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: But the hon. Gentleman did not put it that way?

Mr. Leburn: I cannot remember the exact words I used. I am clear that they understood the position and that they told me that they thought it might be dangerous to bring in a weighting for unemployment because it might bring about unpredictable results for, obviously, it would have to be applied to the distribution as well as to calculating the aggregate. They thought, in any case, that if a weighting for unemployment was taken into account it might encourage, at some future date, other factors to be brought in as weighting.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not saying that the Under-Secretary is entirely wrong. He may be entirely right, but am I to understand, because of the disputes or possible failure to predict how the grant would be distributed, that the three Scottish local authority associations refused an increase in the total figure—simply because they did not like the distribution?

Mr. Leburn: I am not in the least suggesting that. While on this point, I must make the position clear to the hon. Member opposite who suggested that this was a matter discussed with and by and decided by the officials of the local authorities. I think that it was the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) who raised the question of officials at the meeting. There were also elected representatives there and they spoke. It is not for me to try to interpret how the local authority associations came to their decision. I admit that there were officials there, but I think that it is unfair to suggest that the decision may have been arrived at by the officials, because I want to impress on the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs that elected representatives were also there and that they spoke.

Mr. Gourlay: I asked the Under-Secretary to supply the proportion of officials and elected representatives, because that figure has a bearing on this discussion.

Mr. Leburn: I cannot, offhand, say exactly how many officials and elected representatives were there. There were a considerable number of officials there

out of the total of 30 or 32 people who attended. There was a substantial number of elected representatives and a substantial number of officials.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Leburn: I cannot continually give way.
As I said earlier, it may be that a good case could be made out for giving grants to local authorities in this connection. At this meeting they specifically said that that was what they wanted; that that was the case they wanted to make to my right hon. Friend or some other Scottish Minister, and I have no doubt that they will wish to make that case. However, they said that they did not think that a weighting for unemployment would be an appropriate way to go about it. At the same time, they put in a caveat to the effect that they wanted to make representations to the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office to the effect that they thought that the way to go about it was to give bigger direct grants towards projects which might have to be undertaken to relieve unemployment.
With these remarks, and the discussion that we have had, I hope that we can now come to a decision on the matter.

Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. He has conducted the debates both here and upstairs with considerable courtesy, and he has gone out of his way to answer all our points. However, upstairs he was prepared to be a little more flexible, and I am convinced that his flexibility on this point, which enables us to discuss it again, was due to the fact that it was realised that the Government would be defeated. I am still convinced that what he did then was a manoeuvre to get rid of that embarrassment so that the Government could call on the impatient majority of English and Welsh Members whom I see beyond the Bar in order to deny Scotland a measure of financial justice.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would not say very much about unemployment and then started talking about it. He said that announcements had been made in the last few months. Of course they have. I think that Dr. Beeching has made some announcements, and they will affect employment in Scotland. A firm


in Kirkcaldy has made some announcements involving a loss of almost half the jobs which we hope to get by the expenditure of many of these millions about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not seen the announcements made yesterday on shipbuilding. British shipbuilding work in hand is, I think, just over 1,400,000 tons compared with the figure of not so long ago, 1959, of over 5 million tons. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the Clyde he will realise how I was able to quote the figures about the tide of unemployment turning in Glasgow, with Glasgow unemployment dropping by about 300.
This matter is serious and relevant. The outstanding feature is that we have consistently had this double burden of unemployment. In trying to relieve the rate burden of local authorities, is it not relevant to take this constant detrimental factor in Scotland into account? I think that it is, and that is why we have persisted with this Amendment and why I am glad that we still have the support of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). If the hon. Gentleman does not want to be misunderstood he should not make remarks such as that which he made when interrupting the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and which seemed to express a view opposite to the one which he eventually expressed, although I have a feeling that my hon. Friend's speech had a little to do with the stand which the hon. Gentleman eventually took.

Sir F. Maclean: As far as I remember—and we can consult the record tomorrow—I interrupted the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to say that we had indeed strengthened the hand of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in dealing with the Treasury, and I still consider that we have done that.

Mr. Ross: We will see the record, but I think that even that impression is quite wrong.
Is it reasonable to deal with this matter by, in one case, increasing the global sum and, in the second place, by dividing it according to unemployment in various parts of Scotland? I think that it is.
I now come to the vital meeting. I shall not quarrel with the Under-Secretary of State. All that I propose to say is that I was convinced upstairs that we would hear no more of this proposal. It does not surprise me to know that he had a meeting with the Scottish local authorities and got his way. Of course Scottish local authorities would prefer a direct grant. The fact is that they are not getting it. They would prefer it because the hon. Gentleman is dealing with certain local authorities which do not get an equalisation grant. He was dealing with local authorities which would not get an additional penny out of any extra money because their unemployment position was relatively satisfactory. But if the hon. Gentleman says that they stated that they would prefer direct grants, may I ask whether they are going to get an increased direct grant?

Mr. Leburn: It was not a question of their saying that they preferred direct grants. What I said was that they did not think it appropriate to take the factor of unemployment in as a weighting. Having said that, they put it to me that they wished greater direct grants to be given for projects to help unemployment.

Mr. Ross: That is more or less what I said.

Mr. W. Baxter: I understand that when the meeting was held between the local authority representatives and the Under-Secretary of State it was agreed that a minute of the meeting should be drawn up. Is the minute available for perusal? Is there a minute of this meeting? I should like an answer to that question.

Mr. Ross: I do not know the answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, if we do not get the information from the Under-Secretary of State, we will get it from the local authorities. It is very unwise for a Minister, certainly at this stage, to try to conceal the position. I do not suggest for a minute that the hon. Gentleman is doing that. All that I am saying is that I think that the hon. Gentleman is a bad advocate. His heart was not in the case that he was putting. He did not believe in it, and he told us upstairs that he did not


believe in it. Only the rebels on his own side made him make this gesture.
I do not think that the Government are doing anything wonderful about derelict sites. We have 15,000 acres of derelict sites. How many acres have the Government managed to clear under the Local Employment Act?—11½. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government will be terribly generous and will give a grant of up to 85 per cent., and maybe a little more, for clearing these sites. The hon. Gentleman had better look at the Act and see the restrictive conditions attached to it. If he wants to know how the matter should have been dealt with he should appreciate that the Labour Government gave 100 per cent. grants without attaching such restrictive conditions.

We have failed to convince the Government, but I hope that we have not failed to convince hon. Members opposite on the back benches. I even hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) will have once again changed his mind. This is a way by which we can help local authorities and do something about this problem. It may be a matter of only £5 million, or £1 million in the case of the second Amendment, but at least it is a token of our concern about dealing with the unemployment problem in Scotland, and I hope that my hon. Friends will join us in the Division.

Question put, That those words be there added: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 196.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, W, (Exchange)
Monslow, Walter


Albu, Austen
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Mulley, Frederick


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Neal, Harold


Beaney, Alan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, B, K.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Owen, Will


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Boardman, H.
Hilton, A. V.
Parker, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Holman, Percy
Paton, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Hoy, James H.
Peart, Frederick


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R, E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry


Collick, Percy
Jeger, George
Rankin, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, E. C.


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, George
King, Dr. Horace
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ledger, Ron
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Edward


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, N.
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacDermot, Niall
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernybough, E.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)



Finch, Harold
McLeavy, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, Thomas


Forman, J. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stones, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Gooch, E. G.
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, D.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)




Thornton, Ernest
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Tornney, Frank
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wade, Donald
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Edwin
Willey, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Warbey, William
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
Zilliacus, K.


Watkins, Tudor
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)



Weltzman, David
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gower, Raymond
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Allason, James
Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barber, Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barter, John
Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Peel, John


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bingham, R. M.
Hocking, Philip N.
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hollingworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Braine, Bernard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Ronald


Brooman-White, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
St. Clair, M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
James, David
Seymour, Leslie


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C.
Shaw, M.


Bullard, Denys
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Speir, Rupert


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stodart, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Channon, H. P. Q.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Talbot, John E.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Leather, Sir Edwin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Leavey, J. A.
Temple, John M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leburn, Gilmour
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Costain, A. P.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Coulson, Michael
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Crowder, F. P.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turner, Colin


Cunningham, Knox
McLaren, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Curran, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia



Currie, G. B. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macpherson.Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Walder, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Garshalton)
Maitland, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Mills, Stratton
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Woollam, John


Gammans, Lady
Morrison, John
Worsley, Marcus


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. MacArthur.


Goodhart, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(REDUCTION OF EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS IN RESPECT OF LOW RENT INCOME.)

Mr. Manuel: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under a rent rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It would be convenient to take with this Amendment the following Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 3, line 9 and in page 4, lines 7, 9, 12 and 13.

Mr. Manuel: The principle that we are trying to incorporate into the Clause is that a local authority's notional rent income in the year 1963–64 shall be 85 per cent. less the amount of any rebates granted by the council under any rebate scheme to which no objection has been taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Under the Bill as at present drafted, a local authority would need to charge in the first year 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in rent, plus the cost of any rebate scheme. The fact that the rents would be fixed at 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in the first year, 90 per cent. in the second year and 95 per cent. in the third year, plus the cost of any rebates, must inevitably drive up the rents considerably and increase the number qualifying for rebated rent.
Previously, everybody has been agreed that the cost of rent rebate schemes should fall to be met by all ratepayers within a local authority area. Under the Bill, however, this will not be the case unless a local authority contracts out of the qualifying conditions for the full payment of Exchequer equalisation grant. The intention of the Bill is to exclude everyone who is not living in a local authority house from contributing to rent rebates. In the main, these would be the higher income groups.
There has been no real assessment of the number of people who will be driven to apply for rent rebates because of low income. It is surely elementary that the higher the rents are fixed, the greater the number of people who will qualify for rebates. Owing to the strong arguments used in Committee on the question of rent rebates, the Secretary of State now brings forward what he hopes will be a face-

saving Amendment in case the circumstances governing rent rebates become so out of hand that schemes are unworkable.
I am not sure who is the author of this new proposition and whether it emanates from the Scottish Office. I should not have liked to have been associated with it. I am amazed that people who have to draft a Bill in connection with Exchequer equalisation grant should have had thrust upon them the job of embodying within it something to do with rents because of the spleen and venom which has been exhibited for years by members of the Tory Party in Scotland, many of them out of touch with the real facts of life. Scottish Tory Party Ministers have become ready and willing tools to carry out this uninformed intention that at all costs local authority rents must be increased.
I dislike intensely the Government's Amendment. I would dismiss it completely if it did not leave local authorities to decide whether they wished to be treated in the way that it provides. It is obnoxious to me. As, however, its acceptance by the local authorities is voluntary, possibly the, decision can be left to them.
Let us be clear what we are doing. Despite all the talk we had in Standing Committee, this new proposal by the Government will drive rents higher. It sets a third table of 90, 95 and 100 per cent. of the gross value that the local authorities will need to fix in rent if they are to be allowed the cost of rent rebates on the income side of their housing revenue account.

7.15 p.m.

Secondly, if this proposal is adopted by a local authority it will surely drive many more tenants within the ambit of any rent rebate schemes. If this new proposition concerning rent rebates is adopted by a local authority, it is bound to increase substantially the number of people who would qualify to be considered in a rent rebate scheme.

Thirdly, this proposal does not give a local authority freedom to cover the cost of rent rebate schemes by rateborne expenditure over the whole body of ratepayers. Councils with the real welfare of their communities at heart will not accept this red herring. If the cost of


rent rebate schemes rises above 5 per cent. of their notional rent income some councils may consider it, but I do not think that many will accept it. The Under-Secretary of State may, perhaps, point out that this would mean a certain proportion being rateborne if the rent rebate scheme measured up to as much as, say, 8 per cent. of the notional rent income. It might, however, measure up to only 4 per cent. I have a shrewd suspicion that the Under-Secretary has a good idea of the average cost to local authorities of their rent rebate schemes. He is budgeting safely in this respect.

I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not take the clean-cut idea which I submitted to him earlier and allow the straight set of figures in the original Bill of 85, 90 and 95 per cent. instead of staging rents a bit higher, which will nullify completely any intention which he may have of local authorities agreeing to adopt his scheme.

I advise the Committee to accept my Amendment as the only solution to the rent rebate problem. I have a support for my attitude. Unlike the Under-Secretary of State, I do not need to meet the local authority associations. The Ayrshire Burghs Association has informed me that at a meeting held on Wednesday, 20th February, the hon. clerk and treasurer
was instructed to write to the Department requesting that the Association's views on the subject of Section 3 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be conveyed to the Secretary of State. The Association was unanimously of the view that subparagraph 3 of paragraph 3 should be amended to the effect that the income receivable from rents was a reference to the income so receivable without making allowance for any rebates granted by the council. I shall be grateful if you would be good enough to bring the Association's views to the notice of the Secretary of State.

I told the Under-Secretary that similar views were held concerning unemployment. Unanimously, the whole 17 burghs in Ayrshire communicated with the Secretary of State giving their views on unemployment. They are doing the same thing concerning rent rebates. The Under-Secretary would not accuse me of being able to influence 17 burghs in the County of Ayr, many of them controlled by members of his own political party.

Nevertheless, we have this unanimous decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman

will be able to tell me what reply he has sent to these local authorities concerning rent rebates, although he did not give the answer in the case of unemployment, on which we have just voted. I hope that the Committee will agree that we should agree to rent rebates in the terms of my Amendment.

Mr. Leburn: From the very fact that we are also discussing the Government Amendment, in page 4, line 7, I think the Committee will see that I am not altogether unsympathetic in certain circumstances to reductions as a result of rebate schemes being taken into account in the various calculations to be made under Clause 3(3). I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has said, but I really cannot accept the proposals contained in this Amendment, and I hope that I can persuade him why and that I have good grounds for saying that.
His Amendment would set off the rebates against the percentages of 85, 90 and 95 in the table. I want to tell the hon. Member that this table was devised originally to take rebates into account. It was devised specifically having rebates in mind. What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that in spite of allowance having already been made for rebates as a whole there should again be allowance for them. He is, in effect, asking that rent rebates should be taken into account twice.
There is an additional difficulty. The Secretary of State, under this Amendment, would have to accept any kind of rent rebate scheme unless he were to take specific objection to it. The Amendment makes no provision for rent rebate schemes to be submitted to the Secretary of State for observation. I do not think that this is really the right way to go about consideration of rent rebate schemes.

Mr. Ross: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will tell me just exactly what is the difference between the words
to which no objection has been taken
in this Amendment and the words in his Amendment, which say that the schemes have got to be approved?

Mr. Leburn: Only to this extent, that under the Government Amendment local authorities will have to submit their rent rebate schemes to the Secretary


of State, whereas under this Amendment the Secretary of State will have to ferret out the schemes and he will have to see what action he will take,

Mr. Willis: Surely this is really only a quibble? The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that if the words are not satisfactory he can get them changed when they go to another place.

Mr. Leburn: If the hon. Gentleman does not want me to found on that, I am quite prepared to found on the original argument I put.
I would obviously prefer the Government Amendment. I should like first of all to explain to the Committee its effect and then describe some of the considerations which have led to it. The Government Amendment introduces the alternative method of calculating deductions from Exchequer equalisation grant under Clause 3 to be operated at the request of individual authorities for particular years. Under the Clause as it stands at present notional rent income is a percentage of the gross annual value of the houses, 85 per cent. for 1963–64, 90 per cent. for 1964–65, and 95 per cent. for any subsequent year.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Ayrshire realises, the local authority would be able as an alternative to require the Secretary of State to make the calculation on this alternative basis, namely, that the notional rent income should be 90 per cent. for 1963–64, 95 per cent. for 1964–65, and 100 per cent. thereafter of gross annual values less the actual amount of rent rebates granted under an approved rent rebate scheme. Thus an authority which granted rebates under an approved scheme, let us say, in 1965–66 of an equivalent of 7 per cent. of gross annual value of its houses would be entitled normally to have the Clause 3 calculation done on that basis of the notional rent of 93 per cent. of gross annual value instead of the present 95 per cent.
In order for this alternative method of calculating the grant to operate, the rebate scheme must, of course, receive the approval of the Secretary of State. I think that hon. Members will appreciate this point, since for the purpose of calculating Exchequer grant there must obviously be some control. I think that it will be clear that the broad purpose

of the Amendment is to allow actual rebates to be taken into account, and if a local authority charges a rent equivalent to gross annual value in the case of the normal tenant, 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. in the two earlier years, it will not suffer any reduction of grant for granting rebates under an approved scheme.
There is a link here with what I said in previous discussions about Clause 1 about the reason why local authorities do not want the weighting factor in the grant for unemployment. The only field in which expenditure does not in fact attract additional grant is where local authorities stand to suffer a deduction from grant under Clause 3, and consequently high rent rebates because of unemployment would not be offset by more Exchequer equalisation grant. This is one of the paints which was in the minds of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and of my other hon. Friends and, I think, also at, one stage in the minds of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
In framing and introducing this Amendment I have tried to meet at least some of the difficulties which were referred to by those hon. Members in regard to local authorities which may have to grant high rebates because of unemployment. I might also mention that we have redrafted the Amendment to try to simplify it and make it a little more clear. These Amendments meet the case for taking special account of unemployment in the grant system in so far as it is not already taken into account.
I hope that hon. Members will feel disposed to accept the Amendment. I want to say to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that I am the author of this Amendment, so I hope he will not cast any aspersions or criticism at others in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Manuel: I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Leburn: I think that this is a good Amendment. I feel that it is, if one argues about this logically. If a local authority will charge gross annual value—and, as I have said before, I consider that in certain circumstances it could charge more—to those tenants who


can afford it, and if it then comes to the Secretary of State with a reasonable rebate scheme which he approves, then there is no reason why it should suffer any deduction whatsoever. Even if there is a case—I cannot foresee it at the moment—where a local authority grants rebates because of high unemployment, or for other reasons of hardship, because, for instance, of a high percentage of old-age pensioners, whatever it may be, and has to grant rebates to the extent of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. or even 50 per cent., then, provided that the rebate scheme is approved by the Secretary of State, the local authority will suffer no deduction of Exchequer equalisation grant. It seems to me that logically this is absolutely sensible.
Hon. Members opposite have made the point from the first day we sat in Committee that they are not against fair and reasonable rent schemes. If local authorities will charge fair and reasonable rent schemes, I am quite sure that the gross annual value is a perfectly reasonable guide given by an independent assessor. I do not see why normal tenants who can afford to pay should not charge those rents, and for those who cannot afford them, the local authorities should, I believe, introduce rebate schemes. If it is a reasonable one, it will certainly be approved by the Secretary of State and they need suffer no deductions under Clause 3.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I think that the Under-Secretary of State ought to give a full picture. What he is doing is to push the rents up either to 95 per cent. or 100 per per cent. of the gross annual value, but he is also taking away certain expenditure that is at present rateborne and there is a loss of Exchequer equalisation grant anyhow to that local authority. The relevant expenditure will decrease and there will be a decrease in the amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant. Inevitably, he is also bound to drive a whole host of the lower income group people within the ambit of the rent rebate scheme, and that scheme will be paid for only by the people who are in municipal houses. No Christian group of people in this country will agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is the way a rebate scheme should operate.

Mr. Leburn: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says—that if rents are increased a certain amount of the Exchequer equalisation grant is lost. We went into that in Committee upstairs. I repeat that the local authority will be compensated and perhaps compensated three, four or five times, by the increase; in the rents. On the hon. Gentleman's other point that it may bring a greater number of people into rent rebate schemes, that may be true, but I do not for a moment think that the difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. will bring in a mass of extra people. Although I suppose that marginally it may well do so, I still feel that logically if a local authority does not wish to suffer a deduction from the Exchequer equalisation grant, then from those who can afford it it should expect to get gross annual value, and from those who cannot afford it there ought to be a properly approved rent rebate scheme. It can give those rebates and need not suffer any deduction under Clause 3.

Mr. McInnes: We are discussing a Bill relating to local government financial provisions, but in essence it is really a rent Bill. Fundamentally, it deals with the question of local authority rentals. In other words, if a local authority does not charge the rental laid down in the formula provided in the Bill, it loses its Exchequer equalisation grant.
The Under-Secretary indicated that on this side of the Committee we have frequently asserted that we are opposed to low rent policies. I acknowledge that. We have always indicated our acceptance of a reasonable rent. What I should like to know, in dealing with this Clause and Amendment, is what constitutes a reasonable rent? I remember that in Committee frequent references were made to the Public Accounts Committee. That is fundamentally where the question of rentals arose. I know that in the evidence laid on behalf of the Secretary of State before the Public Accounts Committee it was clearly stated that the Secretary of State regarded £39 a year as a reasonable rent. This figure is in the written evidence submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. That was on 9th February, 1961, when the evidence was laid before the Public Accounts Committee.
then there came the Housing Act, 1962, with its somewhat complicated formula. Again, we were to take the gross annual value of local authority houses and the figure arrived at by multiplying £60 by the total number of houses. That meant that if the gross annual value of a house was £46, this would be £14 less than £60, so one had to halve the £14, which gave £7, and add the £7 to the £46, which gave £53. Therefore, instead of £39 being a reasonable rent, £53 became a reasonable rent under the Housing Act, 1962.
In this Bill we have to take the notional income for the year 1963–64 at 90 per cent. of the gross annual value, working up in 1966 to 95 per cent. of the gross annual value, so in the next three years the local authority rentals, if they are to qualify for Exchequer equalisation grant, must reach the figure of 95 per cent. of the gross annual value by 1966, otherwise local authorities will lose their share of the Exchequer equalisation grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) dealt with the question of the rent rebate scheme. It is a peculiar position, but it is nevertheless a fact that each time a local authority increases rents it concurrently introduces a rent rebate scheme, because the tenants cannot afford the new rents. I will give a typical example. Dumfries County Council which charges 22s. per week has 2,443 tenants, but 2,132 of the tenants come within the rent rebate scheme. Is this the situation that the Under-Secretary of State wants to reach?

Mr. Brewis: What percentage of the gross annual value is represented by the rent income at Dumfries after the rebates have been deducted?

Mr. McInnes: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an indication as to the gross annual value. I am dealing with the factual situation in Dumfries.

Mr. Brewis: It is up to 95 per cent.

Mr. McInnes: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support. This is the situation that has developed and that I am complaining of. It is fantastic that a local authority such as Dumfries decides to increase rent for 2,443 tenants and then finds that 2,132 of them—88 per cent.—cannot afford the new rents. This is an intolerable situation.
I wish that the Secretary of State would, once and for all, make up his mind as to what constitutes a reasonable rent rather than introduce Measure after Measure containing complicated formulae which practically no one understands. Let him be honest about it and cut out these complicated formulae dealing with the Exchequer equalisation grants, gross annual value and the rest.
Why should not he merely say that the Government regard certain figures to be reasonable rents for five-apartment, four-apartment and three-apartment houses, and that unless local authorities impose such rentals they will lose their equalisation grants? Let the Government be straightforward about this instead of introducing complicated formulae surrounded with nonsense in order to conceal precisely what they are doing.
As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to reasonable rents. Indeed, we have gone further. We have indicated our opposition to low rental policies. I do not know what support he wants from this side of the Committee than that. But, instead, the Government bring us this Bill with its magic wands contained in almost every Clause waving in one direction or another. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider and accept our Amendment so that the position of the tenants may be somewhat eased.

Mr. Hendry: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) should describe this as a rent Bill. I do not know where he was during discussion of previous Amendments, when the subject of rents was completely out of order and scarcely mentioned at all. On the other hand, we have had a great deal of discussion and we have all tried to achieve some sort of formula whereby local authorities which are less well off and have a high level of unemployment can benefit by the equalisation grants. The proposals put forward by the Government and by the Opposition have the same end in view—that so far as possible a local authority which has a high level of unemployment should not suffer in the distribution of the equalisation grant.
There was a great deal of discussion on these lines in Committee upstairs and the Members opposite first of all suggested that the provisions whereby equalisation


grant would be effected by low house rents should not apply to areas of high unemployment. The Committee decided against that because there were various objections to it. Now hon. Members opposite have suggested a method by which they think a reasonable compromise could be reached. On the other hand, my hon. Friend has produced what I think is a brilliant suggestion which is the only one which can reasonably achieve what we are all trying to do.

7.45 p.m.

Apart from the question of rents, we are all exercised a great deal about the best way of ensuring that areas of high unemployment receive all possible benefit from the equalisation grants. In Committee upstairs, my hon. Friend undertook to see what he could do to achieve this without these local authorities losing equalisation grants in the event of their having to reduce house rents. The difficulty was that if an area of high unemployment reduced house rents to a very high extent it would inevitably lose equalisation grants, because the total of house rents would inevitably be below the percentage stated in the Clause.

The only possible way by which this could be avoided was to make standard rents far above the gross annual value, and that would be wrong. If we take any criterion as to what is a reasonable rent for a council house, surely it is the gross annual value placed on it by the assessor, who is the properly appointed and skilled official for the purpose. In fixing the percentage in the Clause as originally drafted it seemed to me that my hon. Friend attempted to take into consideration the rebates which he might reasonably expect to take place in the average local authority area.

However, it was put to him very clearly by hon. Members on both sides upstairs that this percentage might not be the true percentage in a high unemployment area where there were a great many rebates and where the actual rent income might be far below what it was supposed to be. Now my hon. Friend has gone to a great deal of trouble about this, and I am certain that he must have Treasury consent to what he proposes. He is taking, ultimately, the gross annual value, which is a reason-

able rent, but if a local authority wishes it, and only if it wishes it, he will see that the actual income is the figure taken into account.

Mr. J. Robertson: Why is it that in Scotland the gross annual value is considered to be the proper rent? It is not so in England, where rent is now only half the gross annual value.

Mr. Hendry: We are not concerned here with gross annual value. Under the law of Scotland as at present applied, the assessor was instructed to fix as the gross annual value what he considered to be a reasonable rent between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. That criterion is surely sensible. It seems to me to be logical and to be only fair and reasonable that where a local authority is comparatively poor and has a high level of unemployment due allowance should be made. The thing is logical. There will be an automatic adjustment for local authorities in suitable cases and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the Amendment which he has voluntarily offered to us.
I am in complete sympathy with the intention behind the Opposition Amendment, but I am convinced that it is not the best means of dealing with this matter. I think, on the other hand, that my hon. Friend's Amendment is completely logical and will achieve what the whole Committee is trying to bring about.

Mr. Ross: We have two competing Amendments to deal with the same matter. Clause 3 is a punitive measure by which a calculation is made following which a deduction is made from the equalisation grant of certain local authorities. The actual rent of local authority houses is aggregated and there is a definition of the actual rent which we discover to be not the money paid by local authority tenants, but the money which would be paid if they were all paying the full rent. We are not here dealing with areas of high unemployment, for it is not only the unemployed who cannot pay the rent stipulated. There are also old-age pensioners and those who are sick and others to whom, for one reason or another, local authorities rebate rents, perhaps in part, perhaps in full.
What we are arguing about is whether it is fair to consider rents unpaid because


of poverty as actual income; in other words, whether the burden of meeting the poverty should be borne not by the whole town, not by the whole city and not by the whole county, but only by local authority tenants. Our Amendment simply argues that actual income should be what it is—actual income; that is to say, money paid. The calculation would leave completely out of account, or take into account—it depends on one's interpretation of those words—the unpaid rents of people receiving rent rebates because of their poverty.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) said that the gross annual value was not relevant. He never got things more wrong than with this Amendment. He is straight on his way to becoming either Lord Advocate or Minister of State. The present Minister of State immortalised his defeat by accepting the title of Craigton, the constituency which threw him out. In his new title he has told every Secretary of State that he would go down in history and that everything he did was brilliant. Most of them have gone down, although not in history. He went up and that will happen to the hon. Gentleman if he goes on being as muddle-headed as this.
Gross annual value has been taken as the criterion, but to state that it is fair is to assume that gross annual value is right and to accept the infallibity of the assessors. If the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West had listened to the arguments in Standing Committee from my hon. Friends representing Dunbartonshire and Fife, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who pointed out that it was accepted by the Minister in relation to a certain rule Which the Bill is to make, he would have known that there was unfairness in the lack of uniformity of assessment throughout Scotland, so that gross annual value could be wrong. It could be wrong as between one area and another and wrong within an area. If the assessors were infallible, there would be no appeals and, if there were no appeals, there would not be pressure from assessors, as there is now, to delay the next revaluation for another year because of the amount of work now to be done.
The Under-Secretary has accepted our argument in part. We had a good debate on this subject in Standing Committee

and there was some recognition of the unfairness and some acceptance of the view that the burden of poverty ought to be borne not by one section of the community, but by all the community. The Under-Secretary has recognised that by more or less saying, "I will give you 5 per cent.". That is not enough. He has to go the whole way to be logical and fair. He is still in the same difficulty as before, when in his fairness he argued himself into the position of justifying the rents of local authority houses which were in excess of gross annual value irrespective of whether that value was fair or unfair.
The hon. Member should see exactly what the Rating and Valuation Act does say about the criterion by which an assessor fixes annual value. It has nothing to do with a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is not a question of buying and selling, but a tenancy. It is the rent which a person would be prepared to pay for a particular house on the assumption that there was an even balance between the person in the house and the person wanting the house. In other words, we are now dealing with the attitudes of the person in a house and the person who would like to be in the house. What the person who is in a house thinks it is worth is sometimes slightly different from the view of the person who would like to be in it. The Under-Secretary has made a fair effort and has gone some of the way, but he has not gone far enough. However, I thank him for cleaning up the Clause and clarifying some of the issues which we raised.
Another question which the hon. Gentleman has not answered is: what is a reasonable rent? This is a slogan which does not mean anything. This is the third or fourth time that he has used the expression "reasonable rent", but he has not fixed it yet. There is now to be another distinction between those authorities who have rent rebate schemes and those who have not. It is to be reasonable to have 85 per cent. of the gross annual value in one case and 95 per cent. in another.
No effort is made to define what kind of rent rebate scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. The control is left in his hands. Our argument about Dumfries, which we have made time and again, is relevant and is not destroyed


by what the Under-Secretary has said. The figure will be 100 per cent. of gross annual value after two years and to say that it is 95 per cent. at the moment means that rents will have to rise in a year or two just to meet the Government's formula. If simply meeting a formula is not justified, nor is the use of a notional calculation.
We think that the whole Clause is wrong and that the Secretary of State is abrogating his duties and rights to interfere with local authorities. He has all the powers in the world without Clause 3 and he has all the influence with local authorities which he requires. At Question Time today we had a Question about infant mortality in Scotland and the Secretary of State said that bad housing was one cause and that the Government were doing everything they could to get rid of it. They are doing everything they can to raise rents and doing less and less each year to see that new houses are built. This is where hon. Members opposite have failed Scotland. They have been almost hypnotised by this question of rents, and it is little wonder

that their support is falling. They may be advised by all the advertising experts on their side of the Committee, but fewer and fewer houses are being built to supplant the slums and to meet the needs of the people of Scotland.

The sooner we get away from this situation and back to reality in the building of houses and dealing with poverty and rent rebates and ensuring that where there is poverty it is borne by the whole community and where there is need for houses that is borne by the whole nation, the better.

That is why we prefer our Amendment, but it is an Amendment to a Clause which we do not like. We shall not oppose the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman because it is an improvement on what is in the Bill, but we must insist on voting for our Amendment and I hope that we shall do so right away.

Question put, That those words be there inserted: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 184.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Ainsley, William
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
McBride, N.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McCann, John


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall


Bence, Cyril
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, James


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blyton, William
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu,J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Marsh, Richard


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson,Rt.Hn,Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss Margaret



Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mitchison, G. R.


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, A. V.
Monslow, Walter


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.


Cliffe, Michael
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Morris, John


Collick, Percy
Hoy, James H.
Mulley, Frederick


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. M.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, B. K.


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
?tanner. Sir Barnett
Parker, John


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pa ton, John


Deer, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Frederick


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, R. E.


Donnelly, Desmond
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
King, Dr. Horace
Probert, Arthur


Edelman, Maurice
Ledger, Ron
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry




Rankin, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, William


Redhead, E. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, Tudor


Rhodes, H.
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Steele, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wllkins, W. A.


Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Stones, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ross, William
Swingler, Stephen
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Short, Edward
Taverne, D.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Woof, Robert


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)



Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thornton, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Small, William
Tomney, Frank
 Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.


Snow, Julian
Wainwright, Edwin
 




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James
Hastings, Stephen
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Atkins, Humphrey
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hendry, Forbes
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Hill, J. E, B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John


Barber, Anthony
Hocking, Philip N.
Percival, Ian


Barlow, Sir John
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Barter, John
Hollingworth, John
Pitkington, Sir Richard


Batsford, Brian
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hughes-Young, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biff en, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Bourne-Arton, A.
Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Braine, Bernard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Brewis, John
Johnston, Eric (Blackley)
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Brooman-White, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Ronald


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
St. Clair, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Seymour, Leslie


Burden, F. A.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shepherd, William


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswich)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, Rupert


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Leather, Sir Edwin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)


Cooper, A. E.
Leburn, Gilmour
Stodart, J. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Corfield, F. V.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Coulson, Michael
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Talbot, John E.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Crawley, Aidan
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Critchley, Julian
Lubbock, Eric
Temple, John M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
McLaren, Martin
Thompson,SirRichard(Croydon,S.)


Curran, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Currie, G. B. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R, H.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M.
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Dray son, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Wade, Donald


Duncan, Sir James
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Waved


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walder, David


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
walker, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Morrison, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Alrey



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Woollam, John


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Green, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie



Gresham Cook, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborn, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.

Amendments made: In page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

In page 4, line 7, at end insert:

(3) In this section—

(a) references to a council's actual rent income for any year are references to the income receivable for the year by the council and credited to their housing revenue account for the' year under paragraph (a) of section 138(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 in respect of the relevant subjects, together with any sums so credited under subsection (2) or (3) of the said section 138, but excluding any such income as aforesaid which by reason of the granting of any rent rebates is not actually received; and
(b) references to a council's notional rent income for any year are references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the second column of the following Table in relation to that year:

Provided that, if he is requested by any council to do so, the Secretary of State shall direct that, in relation to that council and in relation to such year as may be specified in the direction, this section shall have effect as if references therein to the council's notional rent income for that year were references to such percentage of the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, as shown in the valuation roll for the year in question, as is specified in the third column of the said Table in relation to that year, less an amount equal to the aggregate of any rent rebates granted in respect of those subjects by the council for that year in pursuance of any rent rebates scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

TABLE


Year
Percentage first referred to above
Percentage second referred to above


1963–64
85 per cent.
90 per cent.


1964–65
90 per cent.
95 per cent.


Any subsequent year
95 per cent.
100 per cent.

(4) In the last foregoing subsection—

(a) references to the relevant subjects, in relation to any council and in relation to any year, are references to any houses, buildings, land or dwellings let by the council and shown in the valuation roll for that year;
(b) references to the aggregate of the gross annual values of the relevant subjects, in relation to any council, are references to that aggregate exclusive of such part of the gross annual value of any house or dwelling comprised in those subjects as may be certified by the assessor to be attributable to any garage provided otherwise than by the council;
(c) the expression "rent rebates" means rebates to which section 73(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950 or section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962 refers;

(d) the expression "rent rebates scheme" includes any scheme for the granting of rent rebates (including so much of any rents scheme made under the said section 29 as relates to rent rebates); and
(e) the expression "valuation roll" does not include "supplementary valuation roll".

In line 9, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "of revaluation".
This is a very important Amendment. Under subsection (5) the Secretary of State takes power, in a year of revaluation, to reduce the figures to which we have already taken exception. There are now two columns. We suggest that he should have this power of reduction in any year. Why wait just for a year of revaluation? Before many months have passed he may well appreciate that he has made a mistake and has been far too hard on Scottish local authorities. We seek to give him power to make this helpful reduction for Scottish local authorities in any year.

Mr. Leburn: The hon. Member has moved the Amendment with great lucidity and has explained exactly what he thinks ought to be done. As I see it, however, we are here concerned with certain methods of calculating a local authority's notional rent income. This is based on gross annual value and, as we have explained in previous debates, we regard this as a proper figure on which to base these calculations. The only factor which would make my right hon. Friend consider making an Order fixing a lower percentage would be a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation, making it somewhat difficult for local authorities immediately to relate their rents once again to gross annual values if they did not wish to lose or have a reduction in their Exchequer equalisation grants.
In those circumstances an Order might be made allowing for a reduced percentage in a year of revaluation, but that is the only circumstance in which such action would seem appropriate. In those circumstances, I regret to say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I would not object to the reasons given by the hon. Member for the inclusion of this subsection. They


seem to be quite appropriate reasons. But I am surprised that he should close his mind to the fact that there might be other reasons why the Government would wish to change the figures. The hon. Member is not gifted with any divine insight into the future. He is not a prophet. We know that members of the Government are a number of things, but I certainly have not associated them with the race of prophets. The hon. Gentleman is being too rigid in this matter.
We are trying to help him. We are trying to help the Government. We are seeking to give them more powers. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should reject our generous offer in such a cavalier fashion. It does not tempt us to be helpful in the future.
He must realise that he cannot tell what circumstances might arise in the future which would necessitate a change in these figures. That must be self-evident. If there is a possibility that circumstances might arise that would lead to a change being desirable, let us provide for it. If we read the subsection we find that he can change the figures
as may be so specified, as if for the percentage specified for that year in the Table there were substituted such other lower percentages as may be specified in the Order
and in relation to any local authority. Surely circumstances might arise in which these figures would be inappropriate in respect of one local authority. A certain area might be hit by severe unemployment, or something of a similar character, in which circumstances it would be ridiculous to maintain the figures in the columns.
All we suggest is that, like very wise men, we ought to take precautions to enable the Government to deal with such a situation if it arises. That would appear to be a reasonable suggestion, and a quite generous offer on the part of the Opposition. The Government ought to accept an Amendment which would allow them to deal with any situation that might arise in the future.

Mr. Ross: I am terribly disappointed at the reaction of the Under-Secretary. I have tried to help him out of a difficulty. He has already convinced us that it is desirable to have this power, because there may be such a steep rise in gross annual values in a year of revaluation

that it would be unfair to leave the figures as they are. Let him read what is in the Bill. The Clause provides that
The Secretary of State may by order provide that the Table set out in subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as respects any year of revaluation specified in the order…
That means that it can be done just in the year of revaluation. Not for another five years will there be any change in the valuation. He admits that it might be unfair in the year of revaluation, but what about the year after that? Might it not be unfair then too?
The hon. Gentleman ought to think about this matter. The Secretary of State is not here to tell him, "This is a reasonable point. For heaven's sake accept the Amendment and save the Government." I advise him to accept the Amendment if he wishes to preserve us from the evils of a steep rise in gross annual values not only in the year of revaluation but in subsequent years.
Will the hon. Gentleman have a very quick look at that? Or does he want me to talk a little longer in order to persuade him that it would be advisable to do this? I fed we ought to press this Amendment to a division from a point of simple justice. But I hope that we shall not be required to press the hon. Gentleman. If he requires this power in a year of revaluation he requires it in the following year, obviously. Has the hon. Gentleman an answer to this? If he has, I should be glad to hear it. Otherwise I think that we shall, in simple justice to the people of Scotland, have to press this matter to a division.

Mr. Leburn: I have listened carefully to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It is true that this power, given to the Secretary of State, has been taken only for the years of revaluation. I make the point—I made it before and I will make it again, and the hon. Gentleman himself took it—that there may be an occasion when it is necessary. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I am not a prophet, and I must work on the circumstances which are foreseeable. The only circumstance I can foresee in which this power would be required is in a year


of revaluation when there might be a steep increase in gross annual value.
The gross annual value is a fair and impartial estimate of the rent value of a house. We must get to this point when discussing Clause 3 as it concerns E.E.G. It is one thing to say that local authorities may require one year in which to adjust the position. If they are to be given more than one year we do not set the gross annual value as a standard to be achieved or a percentage of it, when we consider Clause 3—

Mr. Willis: But may I—

Mr. Leburn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to do this for one year. I admit that hon. Members may argue that in introducing this we are giving local authorities three years with increasing percentages. I appreciate that. But it is one case to phase into a new situation. Having got to that situation and accepted that gross annual value, or a percentage of it, is the standard, that is another case. The only circumstances I can foresee where the Secretary of State might want power to reduce is in a year of revaluation when there might be a steep increase. That being so, I feel that one year is sufficient time in which to get the matter adjusted.

Mr. Millan: Suppose that in a year of revaluation a municipal house value goes up by 50 per cent. on average in an area of a particular local authority. Is the Under-Secretary saying that the adjustment called for in the provisions in Clause 3 should be effected in one year only? Obviously, that is absolutely preposterous. This has been badly drafted. The Government draftsmen have not seen the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that revaluation affects not just the year of revaluation, but the succeeding four years.
We are trying to get the Undersecretary out of a difficulty. I do not see why we should take all this trouble to get him out of a difficulty when he is so determined to put himself into it. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to look at this again. There may be circumstances in a particular area—and this subsection was meant to provide for such circum-

stances—where there would be inequity. This is simply an error in drafting. If the power were available, there would be nothing to prevent the Government prescribing one year in an order if that were all they wanted to do. But if they did want phasing, unless this Amendment is accepted, legislation would be needed. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it and not maintain this ridiculous argument.

Mr. Ross: What is the Under-Secretary afraid of? There is nothing mandatory about this. He may do it; he does not need to do it. Would not it be advisable to have this power? He has taken every other power, not to apply to the whole of Scotland but to a particular local authority in relation to revaluation. Let the hon. Gentleman forget about "Michael the Silent". He is the man in power. Let him accept the Amendment. If the Secretary of State were present, he would know nothing about it anyway—let us be honest. And those in St. Andrew's House who do know something about it would probably give the hon. Gentleman a vote of thanks.

Mr. Leburn: This is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks. If I were to accept the Amendment—and if it were only a question of drafting I would consider the matter—it would be almost giving a hostage to fortune—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait—and it would, perhaps, be misleading in giving the impression that in certain circumstances where there is a steep increase in valuation the phasing out is, perhaps, to take place over two, three or four years. The underlying principle behind Clause 3 is that the gross annual value, or a certain percentage, is the standard to be reached for a notional rent, if local authorities do not wish to suffer a deduction of E.E.G. I think it reasonable to take the power for one year. It is different from extending it over a number of years. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The Under-Secretary has not answered the point which was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He drew special attention to the possibility, which the Clause envisages in terms of the Under-Secretary's explanation, that there might be a steep


rise in valuation for one local authority. What the hon. Gentleman said does not make sense unless that is the interpretation. If that steep and very unfair rise in valuation takes place for one local authority, that local authority will have lo put up with it for five years. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about the other four years? If it is necessary to meet the unfairness of the very steep rise for one year for one local authority, it would be most unfair for that one local authority to be picked out. Does not the hon. Gentleman propose to do anything in respect of the other four years?

Mr. Gourlay: I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East ^Mr. Willis) and for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). This is not a hypothetical situation. It is the situation at present in Fife and Dunbartonshire. The Under-Secretary's Department, with a member of the other place, met representatives of both those authorities earlier this year. There was an undertaking to see what could be done to persuade other local authorities to have a readjustment in Exchequer grant because of the unfair valuations in those areas.
If the Under-Secretary accepted this Amendment, he could relieve those two authorities. As has been stressed, the relief would be not only in one year but in five years from one valuation to the next in which those authorities suffer. I emphasise the appeal made to the hon. Gentleman and ask him to think again and to see whether he can give the necessary relief to authorities which are hard hit.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Will the Under-Secretary have another look at this problem? When I saw this Amendment I thought that it should be in the name of the Secretary of State, because I thought it an Amendment which the Government would want to make as the subsection is obviously a mistake. In drafting this subsection, the Government have assumed that the situation might arise in a subsequent year of revaluation, 1966–67, in which in the area of one or more local authorities there will be an exceptionally steep rise in valuation. It should be borne in mind that most of the valuation areas comprise several local authorities. Those authorities would be

seen by the Government of the day to have had a steep rise in valuation.
All that the Government seem to have done by this subsection is to have taken power to make allowances in the calculation of what is a fair rent for a council house in an authority's area in which there has been an exceptionally steep and unfair rise. The Under-Secretary says that an order will be made to give relief to the housing authority in the valuation area for the purposes of one year. In the remaining four years of the quinquennium that group of authorities within the area will have a level of notional rent to which they must rise greatly in excess of the level to which he will expect the rest of the country to seek to rise.
In view of what we all understand to have been the undertaking of the Minister of State to local authorities in Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, we are seeking to ensure that in future the Government will proceed, presumably by amended legislation, to see that appellants against high gross annual value may make their appeals on the ground that the annual value is unreasonably high in relation to the general level of valuations throughout Scotland. That is the kind of promise that has been made. As that has not been done and the time for making appeals against the 1961 revaluation has expired, would the Undersecretary not wish to be able to do something for those local housing authorities in areas which have an unreasonably high valuation under the existing revaluation of 1956–61?
If he wanted to do something for them, he would accept this Amendment so that he could make the order at any time. He could make it now and substitute alternative figures for those in the subsection for Fife, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire. He may not wish to do that, but would he not want to have the power to do it?
If we have a similar situation arising in 1966—it could be in the same valuation area, it could be Fife—what does the Minister propose to do? Suppose that in 1966 the Fife valuation for local authority houses were 20 per cent. higher than the average valuation for local authority houses in industrial towns in Scotland. Would the Under-Secretary think it enough to make an order under Clause 3(5) to deal with the provision


in the County of Fife for the year 1967 and no other year? Would that be fair? Presumably, following the subsequent revaluation at the end of another quinquennium, he would make another order for the year 1972. Is this the way in which he imagines that the Government should go about their business? Surely not. Surely the whole object of putting the subsection into the Clause is to enable the Secretary of State by means of a Statutory Instrument to introduce some measure of equity when inequity has seemed to flow from revaluation. If that is not the object, then I cannot see the object of subsection (5).
I wish that the Under-Secretary of State would take my hon. Friend's advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is nothing mandatory in our proposal. We are merely removing what appears to be a foolish limitation which has crept into the situation. The Secretary of State will still have power to apply his order to any one authority or any group of authorities. He will do it only for those who have been badly hit by an unreasonable revaluation. If it is good enough to do it for one year, it must be good enough to do it for the remaining four years of the quinquennium.
Will he not take this power? If he or any of his successors did not feel that the situation warranted the exercise of the power, then it would not be exercised and the order would not be made. Surely he will assume responsibility as Minister in charge of a Bill, for accepting this very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Leburn: I am always prepared to accept responsibility for dealing with Amendments. On the face of it, the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was persuasive, but where he goes wrong is in the fact that his whole argument is based on the assumption that the Secretary of State will be the judge as to what is a fair and reasonable assessment of any group of authorities or, for that matter, any single authority. I could not accept that situation for one moment. The position is that we accept the valuations of the assessors throughout Scotland as being able to bring us to a uniform valuation. Where anyone feels aggrieved there is the normal

valuation appeal procedure. I do not think that it would be right for the Secretary of State to set himself up as a judge in this matter.
That is quite a different thing from saying that there may be a steep rise for one year which deserves special consideration. We agree that we cannot look behind these valuations. While we accept the valuations and accept that they are uniform, it might well be that there were circumstances in which for one year, if there were a steep rise, it would be right and proper for the Secretary of State to give some relief. But we cannot get away from the fact that the values brought out by the assessor will bring us towards uniformity. We have introduced a new provision in the Bill whereby appellants will be given an opportunity to make comparisons with other areas so that all the time we are getting towards greater uniformity, although even now we have a much greater uniformity than ever before and we hope as years go on to get greater uniformity still. Giving some relief for one year is different from perhaps carrying over for one, two, three, four or five years, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, because that would be getting away altogether from the principle that the gross annual values are a fair and impartial assessment of this value. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, but I do not feel justified in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the Under-Secretary has such confidence that there are at present uniform valuations and that there will be increasingly uniform valuations—or, as he said, more and more uniform valuations—in future, why does he want the power to make an Order which will apply to one local authority in Scotland? Does not the hon. Gentleman take the power to make the Order applicable to one local authority or a group of local authorities as he sees fit because he recognises that there has been a very steep rise, to use the words he used in his first speech on the Amendment, in the valuation of houses in the area of one local authority or in a group of local authorities?
Does he not recognise that the whole object of inserting this subsection is to deal with the situation where there has manifestly been a departure from this


uniformity which he recognises will always flow from the present system of valuation for rating? Is not that so?

Mr. Leburn: The only conclusion I would draw from that is that I might seriously have to consider whether the Secretary of State should have power to do it for such local authority or local authorities.

Mr. Ross: It is depressingly difficult to persuade the Under-Secretary to see sense on this point. What destroys his whole argument is the fact that these words are there at all. If they are necessary for one year, they might well be necessary for a

second year or a third year. The hon. Gentlemen's persistence in failing to recognise our argument is to deny the historical fact of what has happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), what has happened in relation to Dumbarton and what happened before revaluation took place in Bearsden. In view of the attitude of the Under-Secretary, we must proceed right away to force our Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That "of revaluation" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 159.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Foster, John
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)


Allason, James
Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Maginnie, John E.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maitland, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Barber, Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Barter, John
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Clinch. S. L. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harris, Reader (Heaton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bingham, R. M.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John


Bishop, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hendry, Forbes
Heave, Airey


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Braine, Bernard
Hocking, Philip N.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hollingworth, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brooman-White, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, Percivall


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clarke,Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Francis


Cleaver, Leonard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin



Kerans, Cdr, J. S.



Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Coulson, Michael
Kitson, Timothy
Roots, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Critchley, Julian
Langford-HoIt, Sir John
Russell, Ronald


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. Sir Oliver
Leather, Sir Edwin
St. Clair, M.


Curran, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Seymour, Leslie


Currie, G. B. H.
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Speir, Rupert


Drayson, C. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Lubbock, Eric
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, J. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Talbot, John E.


Emmet, Hen. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S,)


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsfey, Sir Cohn


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thorpe, Jeremy




Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Walder, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Walker, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wall, Patrick
Woollam, John


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, William



Wade, Donald
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Albu, Austen
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, H.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Edward


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A, Fenner
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Small, William


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Snow, Julian


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McBride, N.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McInnes, James
Taverne, D.


Deer, George
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Donnelly, Desmond
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Milne, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Monslow, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
O'Malley, B. K.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paton, John



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper, Joseph
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. McCann.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".

In line 13, leave out "percentage" and insert "percentages".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 189, Noes 153.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barber, Anthony
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Allason, James
Barlow, Sir John
Biffen, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Barter, John
Bingham, R. M.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Balniel, Lord
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bourne-Arton, A.




Box, Donald
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John


Braine, Bernard
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Percival, Ian


Brewis, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jennings, J. C.
Pym, Francis


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Russell, Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
St. Clair, M.


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Seymour, Leslie


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Leather, Sir Edwin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Craddock, Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Curran, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Stodart, J, A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lioyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, Sir Henry


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Talbot, John E.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Temple, John M.


Duncan, Sir James
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eden, John
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)



Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gammans, Lady
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wade, Donald


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr, S. L. C.
Walker, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Woodnutt, Mark


Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woollam, John


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Worsley, Marcus


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Holland, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Collick, Percy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Ainsley, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry


Albu, Austen
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grey, Charles


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph


Benson, Sir George
Deer, George
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Hayman, F. H.


Blyton, William
Dempsey, James
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, Norman
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Driberg, Tom
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hilton, A. V.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)
Holman, Percy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, James H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Forman, J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hunter, A. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hynd, H. (Accrington)







Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Steele, Thomas


Janner, Sir Barnett
O'Malley, B. K.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Stones, William


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, D.


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Lawson, George
Prentice, R. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermilne)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Probert, Arthur
Thornton, Ernest


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Tomney, Frank


Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


McBride, N.
Redhead, E. C.
Warbey, William


MacDermot, Niall
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, Tudor


McInnes, James

Weitzman, David


McLeavy, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Manuel, Archie
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mapp, Charles
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Milne, Edward
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Woof, Robert


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Moody, A. S.
Small, William



Morris, John
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, Frederick
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Neal, Harold
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. McCann.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(VALUATION BY FORMULA OF CERTAIN LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, to leave out "and".

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to take at the same time the next Amendment, in line 46, at end insert:
and
(e) any lands and heritages occupied by persons carrying on (otherwise than under authority conferred by or under any public general enactment) an undertaking for the generation of electricity by water power.

Mr. Leburn: Yes, Sir William. The first is a drafting Amendment to introduce the second, which is the substantive Amendment.
The purpose is to add another category to the list of types of subject to which valuation by formula could be applied, namely, hydro-electric undertakings other than those carried on as public bodies under statute. Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Scottish Council that in the case of hydro-electric undertakings—other than those carried on by the North Board and the South Board—normal methods of valuation produce anomalies and burdensome results.
That is because of the high capital cost of the extensive and expensive dams, reservoirs and plants which a hydroelectric scheme requires. They inflate the value to such a level that the rates

form a much higher proportion of the value of the output than in the case of industry generally or of the Boards' hydro-electric schemes.
We consider that an adequate case has been made out at least to justify including private hydro-electric undertakings in the list of undertakings which under Clause 13 can be valued by means of a formula prescribed by the Secretary of State. This does not mean that a formula will necessarily be applied. A detailed case would have to be made out which would stand the test of discussion with the local authorities concerned, which, under the Clause, have a right to be consulted, and an Order embodying a formula produced after discussion and consultation would, of course, require the approval of the House of Commons.
We took the opportunity of discussing this proposal with the working party on local government finance, and I should tell the Committee that it was not exactly keen on this. In fact, it did not meet with its approval, because it felt that this might be a precedent which could be claimed by other industries. Nevertheless, all we are doing by this Amendment is to create an enabling power to be used only if a case for it can be substantiated. The effect of rate burden on an undertaking would, therefore, not in itself justify the adoption of a formula, nor the fact that public hydro-electric undertakings are valued by formula, and a case


would have to be shown in detail that high rate valuations were unreasonable.

Mr. W. Baxter: Does that mean that an application would then be made to the Secretary of State about the valuation of these undertakings? Is that not a contradiction in terms of the last Amendment, on which the hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State should not enter into the question of valuation?

Mr. Leburn: We are here dealing with the question whether a particular type of subject should be valued by formula.
I thought a good deal about the difficulties which the working party had about setting a precedent, but I do not think that this applies here, because there is something rather special about a hydroelectric project as opposed to any other form of industry. I think that on balance this is wise, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

Mr. McInnes: As the hon. Gentleman indicated, we are dealing here with subjects valued by formula. May I ask him whether he consulted the Advisory Council on Valuation on the matter?

Mr. Leburn: I do not think that we did.

Mr. McInnes: Why not on an important matter like this, as to how these subjects should be valued? That was the purpose for which the advisory body was set up under the 1956 Act—so that it should be consulted in matters of this kind.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that he is just adding one more set of subjects to the list, but he will admit that this is quite a change, because these are private installations, and, so far as I know, there are only two of them—or, rather, there will be two of them: there is only one at the moment, as far as I am aware, and that is the one at Kinlochleven; there will be another at Fort William when we get the pulp mill. Did the hon. Gentleman consult the local authorities concerned? Because it may be that the Inverness and Fort William councils may have something to say about this, rather than the County Councils Association. I am not saying that infallibly the hon. Gentleman should, having consulted them, always take their advice; but it strikes me as strange how quickly

this has come in, on representations made not by the people themselves, and after such a long time, because, after all, the Kinlochleven installation has been going quite a long time.
I do not think we necessarily raise any objection to this, because, after all, if an order is produced we shall have an opportunity of seeing it here. Nevertheless, the point made by my hon. Friend is quite relevant. We took the trouble to set up this Advisory Council. I know that the Under-Secretary may say that this refers to valuations and assessments of an entirely different kind, but these are the kind of people who certainly should be approached in a matter like this. I do not know how often it meets or whether it would be troublesome to call it for the purposes of giving advice of this kind. But I do not think that we can ignore its existence in a matter which, in the aggregate, may not be very much, but which to the local authorities directly concerned might mean quite a considerable amount. I hope that the Under-Secretary will bear that point in mind when he adds to the list.

Mr. Leburn: I am very conscious of this fact, and I feel that the right thing to do is to take this power, but before anything can happen all the local authorities concerned will be consulted; in fact, under subsection (4) they must be. I can give the same undertaking to the hon. Member for. Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that the Advisory Council would be consulted at that time too before there was any question of the Secretary of State bringing in an order to rate by formula.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 46, at end insert:
and
(e) any lands and heritages occupied by persons carrying on (otherwise than under authority conferred by or under any public general enactment) an undertaking for the generation of electricity by water power."—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 18.—(EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC PARKS FROM RATES.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move in page 12, line 11, to leave out Clause 18.
Would it be convenient, Sir William, to discuss this Amendment and the Amendment to Clause 24, page 14, line 31, leave out "sections 2 and 18" and insert "section 2", together with the first new Clause?

The Chairman: In that case, perhaps it would be better for the Committee also to discuss the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) which was to be discussed with the Secretary of State's first new Clause.

Mr. Leburn: I think that that would be better.
In Committee, hon. Members opposite were good enough to withdraw their Amendments to this Clause about the rating of parks. They saw difficulties and persuaded me about the approach that we had taken and particularly the requirement that the public had to have both free and unrestricted access to a park if it was to be de-rated. In view of this, I am now suggesting that we should adopt a different approach and, therefore, we are proposing that a park vested in or under the control of a local authority should be excluded from the valuation roll unless the park makes a profit. In other words, the ordinary parks would be outside the valuation system altogether, which would avoid the assessment of fictitious rental values, and the fact that there are perhaps putting greens or boating ponds for which a charge is made would not prevent a park being excluded from the roll. Few, if any, of these facilities cover their expenses, still less the expenses of a park as a whole, and only commercially profitable parks, for example, fun fairs, would be entered in the valuation roll. It is also appropriate that buildings in a park, which are ancillary to the park, for example, for implements and vehicle sheds and the houses for the staff who need to be resident there, should be considered as part of it. But buildings such as ordinary dwelling houses in the parks will, of course, not come within this category.

9.15 p.m.

It is expected that the vast majority of local authority parks will obtain this exemption. As I explained in Committee upstairs, this will not make any real difference to the local authorities concerned,

except where a park is in the area of another local authority or where it is a district council park. I hope that, with this explanation, the Committee may feel disposed to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 31, leave out "sections 2 and 18" and insert "section 2".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(CERTAIN PARKS NOT TO BE ENTERED IN VALUATION ROLL.)

(1) Any lands and heritages—
(a) which consist of a park vested in or under the control of a local authority; and
(b) from which the local authority does not derive net profit,
shall not be entered in the valuation roll for the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year;

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any building comprised in any such park unless it is used for purposes ancillary to those of the park.

(2) In this section the expression "local authority" includes a district council, and the expression "park" includes any recreation ground or pleasure ground.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Leburn: On a point of order, Sir William. There is an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) to this proposed new Clause.

The Chairman: I propose, if the Committee decides to give a Second Reading to the Clause, to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), if he wishes to move it.

Mr. Hendry: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I am not clear about what we are discussing. I had understood that a new Clause in my name, "Certain village halls not to be entered in valuation roll," was also to be discussed.

The Chairman: I said that that Clause would be debated in the discussion we have just completed. That is the position. What will happen now is that if the Committee agrees to the Government's new Clause being read a Second


time the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to move his Amendment to it.

Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and agreed to.

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, in line 2, after the first "authority", to insert "or a village sports club".
The original proposal discussed in Committee upstairs brought out considerable misgivings. Doubts were raised about parks where there was an occasional charge for entry and about areas in parks used for such purposes as bowling greens. My hon. Friend then gave certain assurances. At the same time he stated that the exemptions must be given out evenly, fairly and squarely over the whole of Scotland. If he is to give exemptions evenly and fairly and squarely over Scotland, I consider that he must in fairness give them to parks which are not vested in a local authoriy but in local organisations such as sports clubs.
There are many of these parks throughout Scotland, especially in the country areas. There are many in my constituency and I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware of one near his own home in the village of Freuchie where, I understand, there are a public park and cricket pitch belonging to the local cricket club. Both come within the definition of a park for the purposes of a new Clause, and so we shall have the extraordinary state of affairs that the park vested in the local authority will not be on the valuation roll, but that occupied by the cricket club will.
This sort of thing is serious in the countryside. There are many sports grounds in my constituency which are rateable and which I hoped would have been classified by the local authorities as charitable and so exempt from the payment of rates. However, that has not been the case. Some local authorities regard sports clubs as charities and others, for reasons best known to them-selves, do not. There is a certain inequity as between one area and another.
The best way to deal with the anomaly would he to regard all sports grounds which would otherwise come within the definition of parks for this purpose as

exempt from rates and thus not enterable on the valuation roll. I have had the extraordinary experience of having to open a sale of work for the purpose of raising funds to pay the rates of a local sports ground. That is the height of nonsense, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see his way to adopt the Amendment and achieve justice for these local associations.
Many of the buildings on these grounds are used for public purposes and are essential to the well being of country communities. Buildings used purely in connection with such community purposes should be exempted in the same way as similar buildings belonging to local authorities. I am not sure whether the wording of my Amendment is perfect, but if my hon. Friend accepts its spirit he will be able to arrange for its redrafting in another place.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not readily succumb to the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). The hon. Member is trained in the law and frequently lets us know of his prowess in his profession. Although his Amendment proposes to include village sports clubs he did not take the trouble to seek to define a village sports club. Although we know what a local authority is, we have taken care to define it, but we do not know what a village sports club is.
Public parks vested in or under the control of the local authority are not to be entered on the valuation roll only if the local authority does not make a profit. If the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, a park vested in any village sports club would be left off the valuation roll even though the club made a huge profit, while the local authority park would be left off only if it made no profit. This is ridiculous.

Mr. Brewis: Nonsense.

Mr. Fraser: We have another lawyer joining in the fun now. He, too, has omitted to put down an Amendment to define "village sports club". If there had been genuine concern to give some relief from rating to those many amateur sporting and recreational organisations which are dotted about the country, many in villages but many in towns, I could


have seen the point. I do not see the point of taking out of the valuation roll altogether some undefined parks which happen to be vested in undefined village sports clubs.
The hon. Gentleman did not even take the trouble to say what is a village. I do not think that a village is defined in any local government statute. Inasmuch as we define a local authority, a burgh and a county, surely it would be necessary, with an Amendment like this, to define a village?
It could be said that a village is a small community, but Cambuslang in Lanarkshire has a population of over 30,000. Is it a village? I am told that it is not a town because it has no council, and yet it is not a burgh. It is frequently described as the largest village in Scotland. Is it intended that the park occupied by Cambuslang Rangers, the local football club, should be taken off the valuation roll? I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that the local authority, which is the Lanarkshire County Council, does not make a net profit from what goes on in this park which is owned by Cambuslang Rangers. I think that the hon. Gentleman will see just how foolish the Amendment is.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman will admit that I suggested to my hon. Friend that the drafting of the Amendment was probably anything but perfect, and I should have preferred my hon. Friend to address himself to the merits of the Amendment and not to the drafting of it.

Mr. Fraser: Before the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could address himself to the merits of the Amendment, and before the Committee could consider them, they would have to be outlined by the hon. Gentleman. He has lamentably failed to do that. He failed to mention what he had in mind, although he referred to a cricket club.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Is cricket a sport?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know. Bingo is sometimes described as a sport. There are many recreational activities which many of us would like to see given rating relief, but we have had far too many

subjects taken off the valuation roll. The proposed change in the new Clause is being made as a result of earlier concessions. I think that too many concessions were made in the 1956 Act, and I do not want any further concessions to be made when the Bill goes to another place.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not say that he accepts the principle of the Amendment and will see that a suitable Amendment is made in another place. We are unwilling to let this Amendment go on that basis, and I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State will not give the Committee any foolish advice.

Mr. McInnes: I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State will require any encouragement to reject the Amendment entirely, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said, it would lead to thousands of subjects being taken off the valuation roll.
It is all right to deal with a village sports club. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will no doubt concede that there are probably 50 or 60 junior football clubs that come within this category because they all come from villages. In addition, local tennis, golf, bowling and other clubs could come within this category. One could carry on ad infinitum, and there would be no limit to the number of clubs which could be included under this provision. I repeat, therefore, that I do not think that we need to give the Under-Secretary of State any encouragement to reject the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) that I understand what he has in mind. That is probably because I live near Freuchie rather than Cambuslang. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of Freuchie. I do not think that ever before has a back bench Member been able to anticipate the mind of a Minister quite so accurately in considering a specific case.
At the same time, I thoroughly understand the other side of the question put by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I say to the hon. Member for Hamilton—although he may not follow this, some


of his hon. Friends will—that perhaps it is a good thing that we have passed Clause 8 when we are making this reference.
The new Clause which we have been considering restricts exemptions from valuation to parks which are
vested in or under the control of a local authority".
I think that it would be right to stick to this principle and would be dangerous to depart from it. Whole communities benefit from the provision of public parks and recreation grounds run by local authorities. I think it reasonable that they should be exempted from valuation. To extend this provision to grounds under the control of village sports clubs seems to me rather different.
The village sports club, whatever its contribution to the community—and certainly, in the case of Freuchie it is a considerable contribution—enjoys beneficial occupation and it seems appropriate that it should be treated in the same way as a private sports club. It might be difficult to distinguish between them. That point has already been made. These clubs may possibly qualify for mandatory rating under Section 4 of the 1962 Act and they are eligible, I should have thought, for discretionary rating relief under the terms of Section 4. Such relief can extend to the whole of the rates. In the light of the full consideration given to this matter under the 1962 Act and of the view expressed by the working party and by hon. Members, I think that we have to be very careful not to widen this question of exemption from valuation and rating. I feel that the Amendment of my hon. Friend goes too far and that a park should come within the definition which we have laid down of
vested in or under the control of local authorities".
Alternatively, the provisions of Section 4 of the 1962 Act should be looked at for rating relief. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: I hope that my hon. Friend will impress upon local authorities the desirability of putting the provisions of the 1962 Act fully into effect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 243 OF ACT OF 1947.)

Notwithstanding anything in the definition of occupier in subsection (1) of section 379 of the Act of 1947, lands and heritages shall not be deemed for the purposes of section 243 of that Act (which relates to unoccupied subjects) to be occupied as respects the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year by reason only that they are subject to a tenancy or sub-tenancy; and the said section 243 shall have effect as respects any such year as if the word "unlet", wherever it occurs in the said section, were omitted.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is intended to secure that unoccupied property is not denied rating relief under Section 243 of the Local Government Act, 1947, simply because it is the subject of a tenancy or a subtenancy. A recent judicial decision has laid it down that as a result of the definition of "occupier" in Section 379 of the Act, property is regarded as occupied if it is subject to a tenancy, irrespective of whether any use is being made of it or not. The court pointed out that if any remedy was wanted to this situation it must be sought by amending the Statute, and that is what we propose here.
Under the Clause, Section 243 will now enable exemption from rates to be given to a property which is unoccupied and unfurnished. The fact that the property may be let will not, of itself, disqualify it from rating relief, although the existence of a lease may be a material factor in determining whether it is occupied.

Sir James Duncan: Some people are doubtful about the operation of the Clause. Up to now the tradition has been that farm land and property are dealt with as a unum quid—the farm land, the farmhouse and the farm cottages. Because, up to now, the cottages have been in the name of the farmer they have all been rated in one. Under the new law, however, these cottages will be separately assessed, although they will still be in the name of the farmer.
If a cottage happens to be empty, for one reason or another—perhaps because of a reduction of load on the farm—I believe that it will still be regarded as occupied by the farmer and charged for rates. Does the Clause cover that point?

Mr. Leburn: In general, it does. In fact, that is one of its purposes. But I want to make it clear that while, under the old provisions, rating relief could not be given to a property if it was let, because it was held that the tenancy itself gave of occupation, rating relief can now be given if the house is empty, but it will not necessarily be given automatically. It could be that a house, although empty, was still of rateable occupation—I believe that that is the right expression—and I would not like my hon. Friend to feel that this is an automatic provision. The case that he puts to me is, however, covered generally by the Clause.

Mr. T. Fraser: Can the Under-Secretary explain the matter a little further? Why should a rates concession be given in respect of a house such as was described by his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan)—a house which is empty but which none the less is the subject of a tenancy or sub-tenancy agreement? Presumably the house is not available for use by anyone else. In those circumstances, why should the owner not be made liable for the rates that would normally be paid in respect of it?
We are going too far in making these concessions. We are always being told about council tenants and other people who now have motor cars. If a council tenant has a garage in an industrial area a valuation of about £9 a year will be put upon it, and if he dies—and I know of an actual case of this kind—and his poor widow has no need for a motor car, and sells it, there is no suggestion that she should stop paying rates on that garage, although it is no longer occupied and although she may be living on a greatly reduced income. If the garage is a brick-built structure she cannot very well sell it unless she sells the house at the same time.
We seem to be making far too many concessions to people who are already over-privileged. Why has the Under-Secretary introduced a new Clause which will give a rating concession in respect of a farm worker's house which is for the moment unoccupied but which is none the less the subject of tenancy or subtenancy agreement?

Mr. Leburn: I shall try to explain to the hon. Member. I understand his difficulty in this matter. There could be

a long debate whether we ought to have this system or not, but in Scotland up to now occupation has been the qualification as to whether someone has or has not to pay rates. Up to now rate remission can be given if the property is unlet, unoccupied and unfurnished.
I use the example of a farm because my hon. Friend has mentioned it, but this can apply to other properties. Where an owner-occupier has a cottage which is unlet, unoccupied and unfurnished, he does not have to pay rates on it, whereas a tenant farmer who has an empty house which is unoccupied and unfurnished may not get rating relief. That is because up to now it has been held that the very fact that he is a tenant as opposed to being a landlord means that the cottage in question cannot be unlet by reason of the fact that he has the tenancy and that cottage is let to him, although it is not occupied by him or furnished by him. In an effort to put this anomaly right, we are introducing this new Clause.

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to continue this discussion for very much longer, but I think that what the Under-Secretary is doing by this Clause is aggravating a great mistake which was made in 1956. He dealt with this question on the basis of a house on a farm, but he could have taken the example of unlet tenement houses or flats in the City of Glasgow, where far too many property owners are being almost encouraged to keep reasonably good accommodation unoccupied waiting for very high prices while thousands of our fellow citizens are living in the most miserable slums. We made a great mistake in 1956, and all that the Under-Secretary is doing now is making a further aggravation of the wrong which was then done.

Sir J. Duncan: I do not know anything about tenements in Glasgow, but I will give a personal example. I have a farm and if I have an empty cottage on that farm I get exemption. I also let a farm to a tenant, but if he has a cottage which is empty he cannot get rate relief. Is that fair on my tenant? I am getting an advantage which my tenant is not getting.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is merely underlining what I have said. In 1956, when his lands were taken off the


valuation roll altogether, there was no question of paying rates on them. It is a great pity that we made provision that if one of his cottages was empty he would not be given every possible encouragement to get it occupied by being obliged to pay rates on it while it was empty. In many cases the farmer keeps a cottage empty waiting for a fancy price to be paid by someone who wants a house in the country.

Sir J. Duncan: No.

Mr. Fraser: Of course that is true. All that the hon. Member has done has been to underline what I have said. He has a concession in respect of a cottage which is vacant on his farm of which he is the owner-occupier.
The hon. Gentleman enjoys a privilege at present over most other ratepayers of Scotland. He now says, "Inasmuch as I have another farm which I have let to a tenant, this tenant farmer should have the same privilege which I, as an owner-occupier, enjoy". I say that it was a mistake to give the hon. Gentleman this concession in the first place. For the most part the ratepayers of Scotland, who are much less able to pay their rates than he is, have no concession at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(EXCHEQUER GRANTS.)

In the Sixth Schedule to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956, for paragraph 6 there shall be substituted in respect of the year 1963–64 and subsequent years, the following paragraph, that is to say:—
6. The notional rates burden for Scotland shall be deducted from the notional relevant local expenditure for Scotland and the sum so arrived at shall be multiplied by a fraction the numerator of which is the proportion of total local rates payable in Scotland in the previous year which was payable by domestic ratepayers (such proportion to be ascertained and certified by the Secretary of State) and the denominator of which is the proportion of total local rates payable in England and Wales in the previous year which was payable by domestic ratepayers (such proportion to be ascertained and certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government), The sum so calculated is hereinafter referred to as 'the notional Exchequer grant for Scotland'."—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause raises once again the question whether in comparison with England and Wales the total Exchequer equalisation grants going to Scotland are fair. One of the claims made by the Under-Secretary at various stages of the debate has been that the purpose of the Exchequer equalisation grant was to give to local authorities which had a lower-than-average rating capacity the kind of assistance which would mean that the rate burden per head of the population in their areas would approximate to the rate burden per head of the population in other parts of the country.
The same principle, so the Under-Secretary said, applies in calculating the total grant coming to Scotland or the English and Welsh total. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), has never tired of pointing out, the result of the present Exchequer equalisation grant in practice is still that the rate burden per head of the population in Scotland is higher than in England and Wales.
The position is even more striking if one considers not just the total rate burden in Scotland per head of the population but the domestic rate burden per head of the population, because that is what concerns the ordinary domestic ratepayer. It is extremely misleading to talk about the rate burden per head of the population by dividing the rates, including those paid by industrialists and on commercial property, by the total population, because equity demands that it is the domestic rate burden about which we are concerned. When we come to the domestic rate burden we find that the burden per head of the population is substantially higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. That arises partly because the burden per head of the population, even taking rates as a whole, is higher in Scotland, but it also arises because the proportion of domestic rates as a percentage of total rates in Scotland is very much higher than in England and Wales.
Up to 1960–61 no less than 59 per cent. of rates in Scotland were paid by domestic ratepayers compared with only 47 per cent. in England and Wales.


Because of the new valuation, the situation is now slightly better. In 1961–62 and 1962–63 it is 53 per cent. in Scotland and 47 per cent. in England and Wales. Next year the gap will have narrowed a little more. It will still be 53 per cent. in Scotland, but the new valuations in England and Wales will raise the proportion there to a little over 48 per cent. Even then, the burden borne by domestic ratepayers in Scotland will still be higher than in England and Wales. If we come back to 1961–62, which is the last year for which full figures are available, we see, for example, that the domestic rate burden per head of the population in Scotland was £9·1 whereas in England and Wales it was only £7·3. There is a very substantial difference.
The purpose of the new Clause is to introduce an element into the formula for calculating the total Scottish Exchequer equalisation grant which will take account of the higher burden borne by domestic ratepayers in Scotland and therefore make the formula approach nearer the principle that the Under-Secretary has so often laid down for us of making the rate burden in Scotland per head of population the same as it is in England and Wales.
This is a particularly appropriate time to introduce this kind of adjustment to the formula, because whereas industrial rerating is coming into effect in England and Wales in 1963–64 this has been put off in Scotland at least till 1966–67 and probably even later than that. The introduction of this kind of adjustment into the formula would give Scottish local authorities some compensation for the rateable value that they are losing because industrial rerating is not, as originally intended, being introduced in Scotland in 1963–64.
I calculate that, if the new Clause were accepted on the 1961–62 basis at least, a little more than £2 million extra would have come to Scotland under the formula. I cannot say what the amount will be in 1963–64 or subsequent years, because so much depends on what the figures turn out to be for England and Wales. There is this problem of the high rate burden being borne in Scotland by domestic ratepayers. The Clause is an attempt to ameliorate the position for them and for Scottish local authorities because they

have not the advantage of industrial re-rating. I very much hope that my hon. Friends will support me. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be persuaded either to accept the Clause or to say that something similar will be introduced at a later stage.

Mr. J. Robertson: It is an exercise in itself to begin to read the method of calculating the Exchequer equalisation grant that will come to Scotland in any year. One has to work through a whole series of notional figures. It all begins from the position of the English ratepayer and the amount of rate deficiency grant and the amount of rates paid per head of population in England and Wales. The new Clause is an attempt to rectify an anomaly which has existed for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I have contended that the global sum of Exchequer equalisation grant coming to Scotland is not the correct sum. The method presently employed is supposed to equalise the rate burden per head of population, but it does not do even this.
I have said this on many occasions and given the figures. I do not want to repeat them. As everyone knows, rates do not fall on every head of population. They fall on only some heads—those of the householders, or at least the wage earners. One of the problems we must face is that the population is different in kind in Scotland from what it is in England. We have a larger proportion under the age of 20 than there is in England and Wales and a much smaller proportion of the wage-earning class. Thinking in terms of households, the birth rate in Scotland is higher. Therefore, the number in the family is higher.
The only reasonable way to consider this at present is the rate burden falling upon the household. I have the figures for 1960. The rate burden per household in England was £22·9. In Scotland, it was £27·7. That is a considerable difference—and it is after the payment of equalisation and rate deficiency grant. It means that to equalise that burden we need about £5 in addition per householder.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton said, ratepayers in Scotland must do things that ratepayers in England are not asked to do. They must, for instance, bear the burden of


the extra subsidy that is given to industry through Berating. The derating given to agriculture is proportionately greater than that applying in England. This, too, falls on a limited number of ratepayers in Scotland. Consequently, the man with whom I am concerned is the ordinary wage earner who must meet this tremendous rate burden.
When dealing with an earlier Amendment I said that in considering the relationship of the rate deficiency grant and the equalisation grant one must bear in mind the effect of the method of distributing the former in England and Wales and how that distribution operates. I also pointed out that most of it was concentrated in what are known as the depressed areas—the North-East, the North-West, certain parts of Wales, Lincolnshire, and so on. I do not wish to bore hon. Members with statistics, but to illustrate this more clearly it might be worthwhile to consider this matter in more detail.
In Committee upstairs I dealt, for example, with the relationship between Barnsley and Motherwell. The rate deficiency grant applied to Motherwell is equivalent to 3·08 per cent. of the total rate revenue, plus equalisation grant. In Barnsley, which, I suggest, is a more prosperous town even than Motherwell, the value of the rate deficiency grant is 35·75 per cent. In Barrow-in-Furness, it is 26·62 per cent.; Birkenhead, 26.22 per cent.; Blackburn, 34 per cent.; Bradford, 30 per cent.; Burnley, 34 per cent.; Bury, 29 per cent.; and in Dewsbury it is 38·9 per cent.

Mr. Brewis: The hon. Member's figures are not always so much in favour of England. For example, if we take Port Glasgow and Darlington we find that Port Glasgow has a rate burden of 215s. as against 295s. in Darlington.

Mr. Robertson: I agree. Port Glasgow's figures are the highest in Scotland. In those figures 43 per cent. is the contribution of the equalisation grant. But why stop there? Why not consider Merthyr Tydfil, a county borough, where 58 per cent. of the expenditure is met by rate deficiency grant? By all means examine Wales as against Scotland, although if we examine Scotland we find some odd figures. I am pointing out that local authorities in the industrial

areas of Scotland compared with those of the north of England, Durham, Yorkshire and Lancashire are not getting their fair share.
The method suggested in the new Clause will not provide the final solution. There is only one way finally to solve this problem, and that is to apply a rate deficiency grant to the whole of the country—Scotland, England and Wales together. But this new Clause would at least assist and would give some relief to Scottish local authorities, which is long overdue.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not reject this proposal out of hand. One of these days—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Leburn.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Robertson: I was about to say that one of these days either myself or someone else will produce the full facts and figures. We shall have to do the work of the Scottish Office and produce the information which we should have had many years ago, and it will not be enough for the Under-Secretary, or the Secretary of State, simply to stonewall. The case for an increase in equalisation grant is unanswerable, and it is time that we finished with all the excuses and putting off that we have had over the years.

Mr. Leburn: I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) that the exercise of calculating the Exchequer equalisation grant is extremely complicated. I do not think that at this time of night he would wish me to follow too far his argument on those lines.
When I read the proposed new Clause for the first time, I was fascinated by it.


I think that I saw the hand of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in the drafting of it. I have listened very carefully to the arguments which he and the hon. Member for Paisley have put forward, but I cannot see any logical justification for accepting the new Clause.
The hon. Member for Craigton suggested that, because the proportion of rates borne by domestic householders in Scotland is higher than it is in England and Wales, the total Exchequer grant should be increased to take account of this fact. The other side of the proposition is that if, after the next revaluation, the domestic proportion of rates in Scotland is lower than it is in England, the grant hould be reduced. I am not sure that this would commend itself to Scottish local authorities. The hon. Member is quite right about the percentages of 59 and 53 which he mentioned and the way in which the percentages are moving, but if the idea is that the new Clause should be accepted only as long as it increases the grant payable to Scottish authorities it is a case of "Heads I win and tails you lose".
I can see no valid reason why the proportion of rates paid by householders should enter into the calculation of equalisation grant. The additional Exchequer contribution to local finances which this proposal would produce would be applied generally to the reduction of rates and would therefore help

all ratepayers, domestic and otherwise, and I think that the hon. Member for Craigton himself would say that some of them are being treated favourably enough already. The householders would, in fact, get only about half of the benefit.

Mr. Millan: That is fair enough, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not possible to do everything that one wants to do in one new Clause.

Mr. Leburn: I realise that.
The Exchequer equalisation grant is designed to bring the relative rating resources of local authorities un to a minimum standard and not to take account of the different distribution of rates between domestic and non-domestic subjects in England and Wales, on the one hand, and in Scotland, on the other.
I think, therefore, that the Exchequer equalisation grant must be based on a fair comparison of the total rating resources as a whole of local authorities in Scotland and in England and Wales, and not complicated by reference to the proportion of rates paid by any particular category of ratepayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to press his Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes, 175.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[10.6 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Holman, Percy


Albu, Austen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hoy, James H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Deer, George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Hunter, A. E.


Bence, Cyril
Dodds, Norman
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Edelman, Maurice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Benson, Sir George
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Blyton, William
Finch, Harold
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kelley, Richard


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gourlay, Harry
Kenyon, Clifford


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
King, Dr. Horace


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lawson, George


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Cliffe, Michael
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Collick, Percy
Hayman, F. H.
Loughlin, Charles


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Crossman, R. H. S.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
McBride, N.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hill, [...]. (Midlothian)
MacDermot, Niall


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, A. V.
McInnes, James




MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Randall, Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Manuel, Archie
Redhead, E. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Roy
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Wade, Donald


Milne, Edward
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Watkins, Tudor


Morris, John
Short, Edward
Weitzman, David


Mulley, Frederick
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Neal, Harold
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Oliver, G. H.
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


O'Malley, B. K.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery


Oswald, Thomas
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Padley, W. E.
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Parker, John
Steele, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Peart, Frederick
Stones, William
Woof, Robert


Prentice, R. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swingler, Stephen



Probert, Arthur
Taverne, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. McCano and Mr. Grey




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Allason, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hendry, Forbes
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Barber, Anthony
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, Sir James


Barlow, Sir John
Hocking, Philip N.
Pott, Percivall


Barter, John
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Batsford, Brian
Hollingworth, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bell, Ronald
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Berkeley, Humphry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Biffen, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Bingham, R. M.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bishop, F. P.
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
James, David
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Box, Donald
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roots, William


Braine, Bernard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brewis, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell, Ronald


Brooman-White, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. Clair, M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Seymour, Leslie


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Chataway, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Speir, Rupert


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Leburn, Gilmour
Stodart, J. A.


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Talbot, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Coulson, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Critchley, Julian
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Curran, Charles
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Currie, G. B. H.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Turner, Colin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncan, sir James
Maitland, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Eden, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walder, David


Elliott,R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Foster, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Morrison, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Neave, Airey
Woollam, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard



Gower, Raymond
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. McLaren.


Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

New Clause.—(ADJUSTMENT OF WEIGHTED POPULATION IN RESPECT OF UNEMPLOYED.)

In paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 there shall be added after the words "the weighted populations in Scotland" the words "as hereinafter adjusted" and at the end of the paragraph, the following, that is to say:—
The adjustment to the total of the weighted populations in Scotland referred to in this paragraph is the addition to the said total of the number, if any, by which the number of registered unemployed in Scotland at the fifteenth day of January in the relevant year, or at the nearest practicable date thereto exceeds the number which bears the same proportion to the

number of registered unemployed in England and Wales at the same date as the registered working population in Scotland bears to the registered working population in England and Wales, both at the same date".

For the purposes of this paragraph the said numbers of registered unemployed and of registered working population shall be ascertained and certified by the Minister of Labour.—[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 169.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Albu, Austen
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Howell, Charles R. (Perry Barr)
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, Sir George
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Bowden, Rt.Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Collick, Percy
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, D.


Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, N.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Deer, George
MacDermot, Mall
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dempsey, James
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Thornton, Ernest


Dodds, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Williams, W. F. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, B. K.
Woof, Robert


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E,



Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Allason, James
Berkeley, Humphry
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Chataway, Christopher


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Box, Donald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Barter, John
Braine, Bernard
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Brooman-White, R.
Cleaver, Leonard




Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Corfield, F. V.
Jones,Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Coulson, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Roots, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Curran, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Ronald


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
St. Clair, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leburn, Gilmour
Seymour, Leslie


Deedes, Rt. Hon, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, M.


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Speir, Rupert


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stodart, J. A.


Farr, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Talbot, John E.


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Foster, John
Macpherson,Rt. Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Maginnis, John E.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


George, Sir John (Pollok)
Maitland, Sir John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gibson-watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Stratton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Garden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Vane, W. M. F.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John
Walder, David


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker, Peter


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hocking, Philip N.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Whitelaw, William


Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hollingworth, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hornby R. P.
Partridge, E.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Hughes Heillen, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Woollam, John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James
Worsley, Marcus


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Frank Pearson and


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pym, Francis
Mr. Batsford.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Schedule 3.—(REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, column 3, to leave out from "the" to end of line 9 and to insert "word 'unlet', wherever it occurs".
This is a consequential Amendment

arising from the new Clause dealing with the Amendment of Section 243 of the 1947 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF PAYMENTS MADE TO COUNTY COUNCILS UNDER PART V OF ACT OF 1948.)

(1) A county council shall, out of any sums received by them under Part V of the Act of 1948 for the year 1963–64 or any subsequent year, pay to the council of any district in the county an amount which bears to the amount of the sums so received the same proportion as the expenditure of the district council for that year bears to the relevant local expenditure for the landward area of the county for that year.

(2) Section 101 of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the application of payments under the said Part V) shall have effect as respects the year 1963–64 and any subsequent year only in relation to so much of the sums received as mentioned therein as is not paid to district councils under the foregoing subsection.

(3) in this section—
district" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1947;
expenditure" in relation to a district council for any year means so much of that "council's expenditure for that year as is reckoned in calculating the relevant local expenditure for that year for the landward area of the county in which the district is situated for the purposes of section 2 of this Act; and
relevant local expenditure" in relation to the landward area of a county for any year has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the said section 2.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect is to require county councils to make certain payments to district councils from the payments which county councils receive as Part V payment from railways and electricity boards in lieu of rates. These payments to district councils will bear the same proportion to the total received by the county councils as district councils expenditure has to the county councils' relevant expenditure.
We are seeking to do what was suggested in a new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) in Committee upstairs. He very kindly withdrew that Clause when it was suggested that we should consult the local authority associations.
I have since consulted both the District Councils Association and the Association of County Councils. Not unnaturally, the former supports this but the representa-

tives of the latter suggested that the apportionment was hardly worth making. However, they did not wish to oppose this. I hope, therefore, that we can now agree to give this Clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Hendry: There is little I need add to what my hon. Friend has said. This Clause takes the place of one suggested by me in Committee and which I withdrew. Most of us in Committee expected the result of the investigations my hon. Friend made. At the same time, I am extremely grateful to him for having redrafted the Clause and corrected the imperfections in the original version. I have great pleasure in commending this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REDUCTION OF EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS IN RESPECT OF LOW RENT INCOME.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out "other".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause 8.—(WEIGHTED POPULATION FOR PURPOSES OF GENERAL GRANTS.)

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" and to insert:
(3) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect for the purposes of the year 1964–65 or any subsequent year.
(4) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and any such order".
The Amendment has two objects. The first is new and the second gives effect to an undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee.
The new subsection (3) proposed by the Amendment states that an order under Clause 8 varying the method of calculating weighted population for the purpose of the general grant may be made for any year from 1964 onwards. I have been advised that it is desirable to specify the year from which the order can operate. There are two reasons why we have chosen 1964–65. The first is that there would not be time to make an order for 1963–64 before the beginning of the local authorities' financial


year. The second, particularly bearing in mind the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who drew my attention to the fact, is that representations were being received from certain local authorities about the proposals mentioned during Second Reading and in Committee to vary general grant weightings. It is, therefore, desirable on all counts that this should be postponed until 1964, which will give us time to consider the whole question fully. In the meantime, of course, the existing method of calculating weighted populations for general grant as laid down in the Second Schedule of the 1958 Act will continue in force.
The new subsection (4) regarding consultations is simply to fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, to leave out "each" and to insert "the Commons".
The Amendment seeks to restrict to the Commons the power to approve Clause 8 varying the weightings of population used for calculating general grant. Similar Amendments to Clauses 10, 12 and 13 were accepted in Committee and I propose to bring Clause 8 into line for the sake of consistency. All orders with financial implications which are made under the Bill and which require affirmative Resolutions will now require approval by this House only.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(MEANING OF PRODUCT OF A RATE OF ONE PENNY IN THE POUND AND STANDARD PENNY RATE PRODUCT.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, at the end to insert:
(2) Before making any rules under the foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
The Amendment meets two undertakings which I gave in Committee. First, it provides that local authority associations must be consulted about the rules proposed to be made under Clause 9; that is, rules specifying the factors to be taken into account in calculating the pro-

duct of a rate of a penny in the £. Secondly, the rules are to be subject to annulment by this House.
The rules are of a mainly technical nature with no substantial policy aspects and will be designed simply to give a fair measure of the real rating resources of a local authority. I hardly think that they warrant the affirmative procedure and, if my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has indicated that he shares that view.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(BASIC RATEABLE VALUATION OF GAS BOARDS.)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that for the purposes of this subsection any changes in the rateable value of industrial and freight transport lands and heritages arising out of section 10 of this Act shall not be taken as constituting a substantial chance of circumstances.
This Amendment arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee upstairs. Broadly speaking, the Clause has the effect of eliminating the present method of valuation for the Scottish Gas Board—which is the revenue principle method of valuation—and substituting another method of valuation in which there is the use of a basic rateable valuation which is then adjusted from one year to another.
Subsection (2) provides that in certain years the Secretary of State shall have power, where he thinks it is expedient to do so, to vary the basic rateable valuation of the Gas Board. The reason for doing this is that there may be a change of circumstances which makes that a desirable thing to do. The change of circumstances which is most likely is a revaluation at the year of quinquennial revaluation. It would obviously be inequitable if the basic valuation of the Gas Board were not adjusted during the year of general revaluation, because if no adjustment were made the rate burden falling on the board would be progressively reduced from one quinquennial valuation period to another.
During the proceedings in Committee upstairs I raised a point with the Under-Secretary of State of which, I think it is fair to say, he was not fully apprised


at that time. The point was whether the revaluation in industrial rerating which is projected to take place in 1966–67 would be taken to be one of the substantial changes of circumstances which of itself would justify an increase in the basic rateable value of the Board.
The point at issue is the simple one that the board in Scotland has never been subject to industrial derating and it would therefore be inequitable, when industry as a whole was rerated, that there should be some change in the basic valuation of the board in line with the rerating of industry generally in Scotland, and in Committee I asked the Under-Secretary of State to give some undertaking that that would not happen. He was not able to do that then, but it was arranged that the Report stage would be a suitable opportunity to raise the matter again, and I am doing that.
It may be that my Amendment, which would simply provide that the rerating of industry under Clause 10 would not be taken as constituting a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of subsection (2) of this Clause, is not, technically speaking, the kind of Amendment which the Under-Secretary would be willing to accept. I admit that there might be technical deficiencies in it, but I want to get it on the record that it does not seem to me to be reasonable that there should be a rerating of the gas industry in Scotland in 1966–67 in the circumstances that the gas industry has never been subject to derating, and I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the sort of assurance that he was not able to give in Committee, when I think he was rather taken off his guard.

Mr. Leburn: I am glad that this Amendment has been selected because I had undertaken to try to say something about this during this stage of the Bill.
I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) the assurances he seeks. Clause 10 provides that from 1966 onwards the rateable value of industrial land in Scotland shall be the same as the net annual value instead of 50 per cent. as at the present time. In other words, industry is to lose its present derating. The Amendment proposes that this fact shall not be taken into

account in deciding whether, or by how much, to vary the basic rateable value of the Scottish Gas Board.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that it is not possible for re-rating to apply automatically to the board in a parallel way to industry covered by Clause 10, since the board has never enjoyed derating, and the provisions of Clause 10 therefore do not apply to it. Nevertheless, in considering any variation of the board's basic rateable value, the Government of the day must be able to look at the rates position as a whole in order to be able to compare the board's position with that of other ratepayers. The rerating of industry is certainly not the only factor to be taken into account when it is necessary to reconsider the board's position, but the Government cannot preclude the possibility of taking it into account.
I question the point made by the hon. Member when he talked about the board being brought in line. If he meant that it would be to the extent of 50 per cent., the same as industrial property, I should not have thought that this would be the case. The intention is simply that the basic rateable value of the board should be capable of adjustment in the light of all other changes in rateable values, so that it continues to pay a fair share of rates. I would not expect it to pay more than that.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to press the Amendment to a Division. On the other hand, the Under-Secretary has not been as forthcoming as he might have been. If, in a year of revaluation, the valuation as a whole—taking industry, commerce and domestic revaluations—rose by 50 per cent., it might be reasonable to put the Gas Board's valuation up by 50 per cent. That is a possibility. Similarly, one could adjust the board's valuation—as has been done in England and Wales—to the increase in commercial valuations. What I do not think would be right would be to adjust the board's valuation to the increase in industrial valuations, when those would be affected by revaluation. In 1966–67,


if nothing else happened, they would rise by at least 100 per cent. Obviously the rise will be even more than that. From what the hon. Gentleman says I take it that that would not happen to the board. It would not be adjusted in line with the industry valuations.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go a little further, and say that there will be no question of taking an average between the commercial and industrial valuations, which would take the rerating into account not fully but only partly. There are many possibilities. We are dealing to some extent with a hypothetical situation. We cannot envisage what the Government are likely to want to do. Therefore, it is difficult to produce arguments for or against any possible Government action. In any case, I have made my point, and it is on the record.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13.—(VALUATION BY FORMULA OF CERTAIN LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 35, after "heritages", insert "(i)".

In line 36, after "quarry", insert "or (ii)"—[Mr. Leburn]

Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, to leave out from "by" to "and" in line 41 and to insert "any person".
It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take at the same time the other three Amendments to this Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, if that is convenient to the House. So be it.

Mr. Leburn: In Committee I undertook to examine the Clause, and these Amendments are the result of that examination. We are here considering the Berating of agricultural buildings which are not actually on the farm. I was particularly concerned to examine the words "any agricultural land" in line 43, to ensure that the land was firmly linked to the occupancy of the building which is to obtain derating. Hon. Members suggested that under the

Clause as it stands a building used by an agricultural contractor or merchant would be able to obtain derating. In these Amendments we have redrafted the Clause to meet this point. The effect of the first four Amendments would be to make the paragraph read:
A building (other than a dwelling-house) which is occupied by any person and is used solely in connection with agricultural operations by him on any agricultural land (other than the building) whether adjacent to the building or not, being agricultural land occupied by him.
This, I think, establishes quite clearly that the building and the land which it serves must have the same occupancy so that what the paragraph covers is simply a farm building separated by some distance from its farm.
The purpose of the new subsection (2) is to apply that principle to farm associations and to ensure that a similar restriction applies to land occupied by the association or its members. At the same time, while we did not think that the possible implications of exemption from rates given to buildings occupied by an association were in reality as wide as some hon. Members feared, we felt that it would illustrate and limit the nature of the association to farmers combining for efficiency if we introduced a numerical limit for those associations. I have chosen for this purpose a limit of twenty persons. This number is somewhat arbitrary, but twenty persons is a numerical limit for partnerships in Scots law. While we do not regard these associations as partnerships, this provides an analogy with existing Scottish practice.

Mr. Ross: In Committee there was considerable misgiving and concern expressed as to how widely this could be interpreted. I remember having quite an argument with the Under Secretary about the question of land. I am glad that this has been tightened up.
I also remember that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) joined in expressing concern that this might conceivably be widened away from the producer of agricultural operations to trading aspects. So far as I see, this has been reasonably well covered. I think that it could be still more definitely restricted, but, taking it all in all, it ties up generally with what we had in mind originally. I do not know if there is any


great merit in the limit of twenty persons. I think that rather high in relation to associations, and I have taken the trouble to find out about this matter since we discussed it in Committee.
We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to our complaints and meeting them, if only in part, but I hope that he will keep an eye, as he said he would, on these new developments in agriculture. There is no doubt that agriculture is becoming more and more a business. It may well not always merit as against other commercial concerns the amount of Berating which is making it very profitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 42, leave out from "by" to "on" in line 43 and insert "that person".

In line 44, at end insert
being agricultural land occupied by that person,".

In page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) The foregoing subsection shall apply to a building occupied by or on behalf of an association to which this subsection applies and to any land occupied together therewith as it applies to a building occupied by a person and to any land occupied therewith, but with the following modifications:—
(a) for the reference in paragraph (a) thereof to agricultural operations carried on by the person there shall be substituted a reference to such operations carried on by the association or any member thereof; and
(b) for the reference in the said paragraph (a) to agricultural land occupied by the person there shall be substituted a reference to such land occupied by or on behalf of the association or by any member thereof.
(3) The last foregoing subsection applies to any association of not more than twenty persons who are jointly and severally liable for any debts of the assocation.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause 15.—(PROCEEDINGS IN APPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 30, after "(Scotland)" insert "Amendment".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out line 31.
I raised this point with the Under-Secretary of State on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The more I think of it the more inclined I am to the view that he would be doing us a service and saving the time of

the House if he said right away that he would accept the Amendment. He would not be losing a great deal and he would be preserving what I think is a valuable right.
He proposes to replace by regulations a right specifically laid down in Section 12 of the 1956 Act. This is a useful power which should not be left out, possibly to be replaced by regulations covered by the general regulation-making power, for it involves the procedure of the valuation appeal committee. Let us look at what the Minister proposes to repeal. It is information to be furnished by parties to an appeal or complaint. At present anyone taking an appeal in relation to a valuation to the valuation appeal committee can call upon the assessor to tell him the basis of his original assessment and the subject with which the relevant comparison has been made. Likewise, the assessor can make the same demands on the appellant in respect of the basis of the appeal and what he proposes to consider as a relevant comparison to support the appeal.
That is written into the Statute and is a valued right which is the basis of a person's appeal. It is unfair of the Secretary of State to take away this right and not himself to come to the Committee or the House to justify it. The Government Whip makes a comment on that; he has made many more speeches—from a sedentary position—on the Bill than has the Secretary of State.
The Under-Secretary well knows that many appeals have been brought forward in a year of revaluation. This proposal would obstruct a person seeking to make an appeal and might obstruct the assessor in relation to an appeal which he might make. I see no great virtue in wiping out this right and covering it by blanket regulation-making powers. As I raised the matter in Committee and gave due warning of the point, and as the Amendment has been on the Order Paper for some time, I hope that the Under-Secretary will have second thoughts. He would not be robbing his Bill of any little virtue which it might have, and he would be retaining rights which are valued by people in respect of valuation appeals.

Mr. Leburn: I assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that I have given a lot of thought to the matter and that I have every sympathy with the


aim behind his Amendment, which is, of course, concerned with the protection of the rights of appellants under Section 12 of the 1956 Act.
The hon. Member will recall that in Committee upstairs I gave an assurance that, whatever is done by way of regulation, it will not take away anything from any of the basic rights of the appellant. I will explain why I have included Section 12 of the 1956 Act as one of the provisions that may be repealed under Clause 15 and why I would hesitate to accept the Amendment. I hope that, just as I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say, he will try to follow my difficulty in this connection.
The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council considered last year, in studying the lessons of the 1961 revaluation, the question of valuation appeal procedures with a view to the inclusion of any changes in the forthcoming Bill—that is, this Bill—and it soon became obvious that it would be better to deal with this procedure question by means of regulation, which involved repealing the existing statutory provisions, including Section 12 of the 1956 Act, to prevent confusion and overlapping. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will come that far with me. The question, however, is whether Section 12 should have been one of these. I consider that it is necessary, for whatever ones we do include, that there should be power to repeal, so that there is no confusion.
I agree that Section 12 of the 1956 Act confers rights on appellants which should not be lost. It is for this reason that I gave the assurance in Committee upstairs to which I have referred. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that Section 12 has not been operating satisfactorily from the point of view of either the appellant or the assessor. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, under Section 12 an appellant can demand a list of the comparable properties on which the valuation is based and the ground of the valuation, but he must make this demand at the time of lodging the appeal; and the information must be supplied within twenty-one days. The assessor can also make a corresponding demand and the appeal must not be heard by the Valuation Appeal Committee

until twenty-eight days after that right has been exercised.
There are several defects in this procedure. There is the practical problem that a large proportion of appeals in an area of revaluation tend to come in over a very short period, with the result that even though in practice many of these appeals will not be heard for months and months, the assessor must produce the information demanded within twenty-one days. Then there is the fact that the appellant must exercise his right at the time of lodging the appeal, which allows him no time for further thought.
In view of these considerations, it would be to the interests of the appellants as well as the assessors if Section 12 were re-examined; and this is what I was proposing to do—that is, reexamined in consultation with the Valuation Advisory Council and the local authorities to see whether it could be replaced by a more generally useful provision. I confess that we do not know what it should be at this stage, but I do know that it should help everyone concerned if it were possible to adjust Section 12 of the 1956 Act. I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Kilmarnock on this point. If not, perhaps he will let me know his further doubts. I have put my difficulties to him and I hope that he appreciates them.

Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the right with which we are concerned is the right to ask for the information in question? The only difficulty he has listed is that of convenience in relation to a stipulation about time. Will he consider making some change in relation to his power to alter that time of twenty-one days, which originally was ten days in the 1956 Act?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I have a great regard for the Under-Secretary. I think he is fair and reasonable, but his opposition to this Amendment creates in my mind the belief that there is something sinister behind his deliberate attempt to block it.
The hon. Gentleman said that as a result of the revaluation there will be tens of thousands of appeals. It is over 100 years since we have had a revaluation of this kind. Revaluation was left to the whims and fancies of the local assessors, and they undertook a revaluation only


as and when it suited them, spread over years. Here we have had for the first time a practical and exceedingly good system introduced in order to ensure that revaluations will take place each succeeding five years.
I regard Section 12 of the 1956 Act as fundamental to the whole system of appeals. It provides that it shall be the duty of the assessor, if requested by the appellant, to provide information upon which he, the assessor, founds his case. A similar duty is imposed upon the appellant to give the assessor the information upon which the appellant founds his case. There could not be anything more reasonable than that. It is a co-operative arrangement whereby the assessor shall tell the appellant why he so decided on such a revaluation, and the appellant shall tell the assessor why lie regards that revaluation as being wrong.
Section 12 is one of the most important provisions of the 1956 Act. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman, who is normally so kind and helpful in matters of this sort, should adopt a dictatorial attitude on this vital issue. I appeal to him to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Leburn: With the leave of the House, I should like to say one more word on this Amendment. I told the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that I was sympathetic to his Amendment. I listened carefully to what be said when he intervened in my speech. I have also heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I, too, am very concerned about the rights of the appellant. That is an important factor. I have been persuaded by what both hon. Members have said, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that we already have powers to change the timing, which I think will help in regard to the difficulty which has existed about the twenty-one days. I think that, on balance, I have been persuaded by the arguments put forward from the benches opposite, and therefore I propose to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: With the leave of the House, I should like to express my appreciation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I make the position clear? As I understand it, the hon. Member does not require leave to speak a second time when he has moved an Amendment, and neither does the Under-Secretary who is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, too, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—thanks all round! I was about to say that the Committee and the House owe a great debt of gratitude to the Under-Secretary. He has been in his seat since a quarter-past four without a single break. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I wonder where all the other Scottish Ministers are. It is all very well somebody saying, "Hear, hear." Whoever said it should be cracking the whip and seeing that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues was present to give him a chance to get a cup of tea. I begin to think that the longer the hon. Gentleman sits here, the better able he is to appreciate the points and the brilliance of the argument as put forward from this side.
The Under-Secretary's acceptance of the Amendment is no surprise to us, because in Committee we were able to persuade him by the force of our argument. We are glad that he has taken this step.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether to press my Amendment in page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) Regulations under this section shall not have effect unless approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
The Under-Secretary will remember our argument concerning the effect of the Amendment. It was because of Section 12 of the 1956 Act and our concern that matters should not be left to the negative procedure, whereby we should watch all the various enactments and pray against them, but that it should be the responsibility of the Government to bring them forward by the affirmative procedure.
I am not necessarily prepared to press the matter in view of the fact that the previous important right has been left in the Bill. Having made that explanation, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

Clause 19.—(REPAYMENT OF RATES PAID IN ERROR.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, to leave out from first "made" to "the" and to insert "after".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendment we took the following one, in line 25.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Leburn: The effect of the Clause as it stands is that no repayment at any time could be made by a local authority unless it specifically had an application by an individual concerned for that repayment. In other words, local authorities would have neither the power nor the duty of making any repayments if they found that an error had been made. By rephrasing the proviso, we have put the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 25, at end insert:
unless application therefore was made before that time".—[Mr. Leburn.]

Clause 21.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 199 AND 200 OF ACT OF 1947.)

Mr. Leburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 37, to elave out subsection (2) and to insert:
(2) Section 200 of the Act of /947 (which also relates to the inspection of accounts) shall have effect as if in subsection (1) thereof the word "any" were inserted immediately before the word "Saturday", in the second place where that word occurs; and as if after subsection (1) thereof there were inserted the following subsection:—
(1A) Any such ratepayer may make written application to the local authority for an opportunity to inspect the said abstract of accounts at such reasonable time as may be specified in the application, being a time not between the hours specified in the foregoing subsection in relation to Saturdays and other weekdays respectively but within the period of seven days referred to in that subsection; and where such application has been made, the local authority shall make the abstract of accounts available for inspection by the ratepayer at that time in such manner as the local authority may determine".
This is another Amendment which is designed to meet points raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who kindly explained to me that he could not be present tonight, asked whether arrange-

ments could be made for the inspection of local authority accounts by individual ratepayers at hours other than the restricted hours set out in Section 200 of the 1947 Act. The Amendment will allow ratepayers, on written application, to arrange to see the accounts at any reasonable time outside the specified hours.

Amendment agreed to.

11.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I should like to express my thanks to all hon. Members who have played a considerable part in improving the Bill. When I express these thanks I express them very sincerely and very warmly, and particularly—I hope the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will not mind—to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee.
It now seems to me a very long time ago since we dealt with the earlier Clauses of the Bill. I think that it is perhaps right to remind ourselves that the origin of the Bill arose from the need to provide a continuation of Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland after 15th May this year. In making this provision, we have tried in various ways to improve the system, and, at the same time, we have taken the opportunity to introduce a number of improvements not only in regard to Government grants, but also in regard to a number of other matters affecting valuation and rating and one or two other minor points.
Exchequer equalisation grant has been a valuable feature of local authority finance since it was introduced and is an outstanding example of grant given by the Exchequer to local authorities to use as they judge best in the light of local circumstances. Time after time when the grant has been reviewed it has received the approbation of local authorities who, I believe, recognise it as an equitable means of providing assistance to those authorities whose rating resources per head of population are below the average for Great Britain as a whole.
I recognise very well that there is an inherent difficulty in deciding how best to calculate the amount of grant which


should come to Scotland as compared to the amount which goes to England and Wales. This is largely due to the fact that there is no unified valuation system covering both countries, but I believe that as the years have rolled on we have been able progressively to improve these arrangements.
I do not at this late hour wish to make a long speech, but I must specifically mention Clause 3. I understand very well that it has proved to be controversial. The revision of E.E.G. means looking, among other things, at the circumstances in which grant is paid, perhaps on occasion without justification. The assumption which lies behind the grant is that it should be applied to the assistance of expenditure which would otherwise go on the rates. The Public Accounts Committee has emphatically drawn attention to one of the difficulties in the present system. Since local authorities in receipt of grant get a guaranteed percentage of their relevant expenditure paid to them by the Exchequer, housing deficits transferred to rates receive grant, and if this results in charging unreasonably low rents, the taxpayer is paying an additional contribution through grant.
I do not wish to say very much more, but there are one or two other important Clauses, particularly perhaps Clause 10. It has had its critics from time to time, but I believe what we have done is right.
This will not, in my opinion, be the last Bill which we shall have to deal with for Scottish local government. I realise that improvements will continue to be necessary from time to time both in regard to the relationship between local authorities and the Exchequer and in regard to the valuation and rating system. I am well aware of that. I hope that, as the days go on, we shall be able to get better and better uniformity in rating and valuation matters. I realise that this is important when we are here dealing with the question of equalisation grants, and, in fact, in dealing with other matters as well. This will not be the last Measure dealing with Scottish local government finance, but I commend this one to the House. In doing so, I would like to thank again the local authority associations and the

working party for what they have done. Most of all, I would thank hon. Members who have done a great deal to improve the Bill.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: First, I tender, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), his apologies to the Under-Secretary of State and to the House. He has an appointment in Scotland and has had to catch a train. Secondly, I associate myself with the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State about the good work accomplished in Committee upstairs. While it appeared to me that most of the work was done on one side of the Committee, I was on one occasion very grateful for the support we got from certain active Members opposite, although, at the end of the day, nothing much came of it.
We used a great deal of brain power and exercised our thoughts to try to improve the position of local authorities regarding unemployment, but were unsuccessful. If things do not get better, something will have to be done eventually about unemployment weighting in local government finance.
I want to thank the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for his great patience and, at times, forbearance. The Committee got a bit heated at times and those of us who were active felt very keenly about some of the issues but the hon. Gentleman steered his way successfully through and surmounted all the hurdles.
This Bill is financial, but is different from previous Measures of this character, because the Government have introduced new powers for the allocation of the Exchequer equalisation grants, tied to a formula laid down in Clause 3, which is designed to force up municipal rents. It is a new feature and I regret it. I hope that no Government I support would ever introduce a Bill of this character with this ulterior motive in connection with the allocation of grants to Scottish local authorities.
We must remember that this exercise, as we see it, and as the hon. Gentleman has agreed, will lose Scotland £1 million in Exchequer equalisation grants which will be filched from the local authorities and returned to the maw of the Treasury. I do not think that this is something Which any hon. Member associated in


driving the Bill through the House should be proud of. We should think carefully before we have a recurrence of this sort of exercise.
I believe that Clause 3 is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has already all the powers he needs to deal with local authority rents if he wishes under the 1962 Housing Act. But the Government has been loth to use those powers because of the resentment that would arise among a great many electors if the Government were seen to be putting up rents. The Government are now forcing local authorities themselves to inflate their rents and take the blame or lose certain proportions of the Exchequer equalisation grant. In Committee, the Under-Secretary agreed with me that that was the case.
In the context of rent rebates, the Bill also brings into being a principle which is obnoxious, unfair and un-Christian. The Under-Secretary has heard my views on this and I will not dwell on them tonight. To qualify for the full equalisation grant, local authorities are to have to increase rents if they are not above the figures laid down in Clause 3. When I say "figures" I refer to the proportion of the gross annual value. Many of the lower income groups do not have the incomes to pay these rents and rent rebate schemes are now already operated on their behalf. The cost of rent rebate schemes is now to fall wholly on the tenants of council houses. This is a substantial change.
I could quote Section 73 (4) of the 1950 Act which gives local authorities complete freedom to set up their own rent rebate schemes and to operate them as they think fit. The Government are taking away quite substantial powers from the local authorities while further powers are being placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. That cannot be denied. Local authorities are now to have no power to operate rent rebate schemes which they may wish to operate.
I deplore, as do all my hon. Friends and, I am sure, some hon. Members opposite, these further dictatorial powers which are being taken by the Secretary of State. This is weakening the fabric of Scottish local government and the status of local councillors who are now to be told what they must do about local authority finances in practically every

field. This is a bad thing and I hope that when there is a change of Government, as I sincerely hope that there will be when we have a general election, we will be committed to removing the obnoxious financial provision which is introduced by Clause 3.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. McInnes: I want to express, on behalf of those of us on this side of the House, our appreciation of the Under-Secretary. He has said that he had the co-operation of all those who took part in all the stages of the Bill and I must confess that I found his attitude very flexible. He demonstrated that in Committee and we have had evidence of it again today. I express my personal gratitude to him for his co-operative spirit, but in saying that I want him clearly to understand that, while I appreciate his efforts, I detest the Bill.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friends and I are mindful of the great strain which has been imposed on the Under-Secretary of State in the course of today's debate. He has been here since the beginning of the discussion on public business this afternoon without once being relieved. The hon. Gentleman is one of a team of four Scottish Ministers who are free to play their part in the House. It may be that the two other Under-Secretaries of State were not sufficiently briefed on the Bill to enable them to relieve the hon. Gentleman, but it is scandalous that the Secretary of State has not once put in an appearance in the course of today's proceedings.
In view of what I have said, I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I might put on record a few comments on Clause 8. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I read with considerable interest a good deal of what was said both by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Gentleman as to the reason why he wanted this order-making power to adjust the weighting provisions for the calculation of general grant. He explained that Lanarkshire was to have a considerable reduction in its general grant because of the development of the new town of East Kilbride.
On Friday, 1st March, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and a depu-


tation from Lanarkshire County Council, I waited on the Secretary of State for Scotland, at St. Andrew's House, to discuss with him the problems affecting Lanarkshire in the sphere of education arising from the development of the new town to which I have referred. On a number of occasions we have made representations to the Secretary of State, to his predecessor, to the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, and to the Minister of State for Scotland, to the effect that the Lanarkshire education authority is seriously penalised by the operation of the general grant for the simple reason that we have East Kilbride in Lanarkshire.
The general grant is determined by the counting of heads, with certain weighting for sparcity of population, and that kind of thing. The county has to meet its educational expenditure out of general grant, and a substantial part of this expenditure has to be applied to the building of schools in East Kilbride to cater for people from other parts of the country. We cannot find the money to build schools in other parts of Lanarkshire because so much of the money available to the county has to be spent on building schools in East Kilbride for the population that is moving into the county.
On 1st March the Secretary of State said that he appreciated that there was a serious problem. He expressed his awareness of the financial burden falling on Lanarkshire County Council. We pointed out that a similar burden would fall on other counties with new towns, particularly Fife with Glenrothes, Dunbartonshire with Cumbernauld and West Lothian with Livingstone. He said that he would be able to adjust the weighting under the Clause and that he would do what he could to see whether Lanark could get some advantage out of the order to be made under the Clause.
I do not know whether he then knew what the Under-Secretary had explained to the Committee would be the effect of the order, but I quoted it back to the Secretary of State, who said, however, that he believed that he could use the new freedom given him under the Clause to increase the general grant to Lanarkshire and not to decrease it, as the Under-Secretary had explained

was the purpose of this order-making power.
I thought it important to get this on the record. I wondered whether the under-Secretary had been informed of what the Secretary of State had promised on Friday, 1st March, to the deputation from Lanarkshire, and whether he would now say that there was a reasonable prospect of the Secretary of State's promise being kept.

Mr. Leburn: I confess that I had not been so advised. I would like to consult my right hon. Friend on this point. In passing, although there has been criticism of my right hon. Friend's absence today, I ought to point out that he is on very important business, and I happily volunteered to take the whole of the Bill. I think that I am just managing.
I would remind the hon. Member—this is rather a long intervention—that we accepted an Amendment on the Clause, bringing in the year 1964 as the effective year, and that I then made the point that this would give an opportunity to these specific local authorities to make further representations and to have the matter further considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Board of Trade to make advances to Wiggins, Teape &amp; Co. Limited in connection with the construction and equipment of pulp and paper mills in the neighbourhood of Fort William, and to make grants to that company in respect of interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise the provision out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of sums not exceeding £10 million in all to be advanced to the Board of Trade to the said company by way of loan;
(b) of sums not exceeding £1·3 million in all required by the Board of Trade for making grants to the said company in respect of the company's liability for interest accruing before 1st January, 1967, on sums advanced by way of loan under the said Act;
and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Board of Trade by way of interest on or repayment of such advances by way of loan.

Resolution agreed to.

TEACHERS (TRAINING GRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

10.33 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I want to raise one aspect of our provisions in respect of teacher training grants. I am anxious to bring home to the House the fact that some of these provisions make nonsense of the Government's claim that they want to increase the supply of teachers as quickly as possible. I never realised how absurd some of these provisions were until a case arose in my constituency. Like everyone else, I thought that we were short of about 100,000 teachers, and that the Government were leaving no stone unturned to increase the supply as quickly as possible.
Then, a short while ago—last January, to be exact—I received a letter from a young Blackburn mother, Mrs. Dinnis, who wrote to me without her husband's knowledge to say that her husband, at the age of 21, had embarked on a three-year teachers' training course last September, and that as a result she, her husband, and a small baby were having to live on £6 10s. a week, and would have to go on doing so for the next three years.
This grant is appropriate to a student who is considered to be not a married man with a family but someone still dependent on his parents. Mrs. Dinnis wrote to the Blackburn education officer, Mr. Hartley, and asked whether this provision was in order. He replied pointing out that her husband was not over 25 years of age and had not been supporting himself for more than 21 months before he decided to take up his teacher's training. He was classed as dependent upon his parents for the purposes of grant and was not eligible for a grant for his wife and child, even though his parents are not contributing anything to his support, even though he has been earning his own living for nearly two years, and even though he has a wife and young baby.
When Mrs. Dinnis wrote to me I just could not believe that these facts could be correct. She puts a point of view very simply and movingly which I believe is echoed by hundreds of students in similar circumstances:
We are repeatedly being told in advertisements etc. put out by the Government"—

she wrote—
that teachers are urgently required, but I am very much afraid that my husband will not be able to complete his training as I cannot possibly see how we can manage to live off this grant. I ask for no luxuries, only that we should have enough money for the bare necessities and to give our 11-month old baby a good start in life in the way of nourishing food and warm clothes.
If it were possible, I myself would go to work, although I dearly want to took after my baby and myself, but both my own and my husband's parents and relatives live some distance from Blackburn, so this is impossible.
To add to our pecuniary plight, my husband received a letter from Blackburn education authority last week informing him that he would have to pay the first £10 of his travelling expenses, which amount to 18s. 4d. per week.
It was with considerable confidence, therefore, that I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who I am glad to see here tonight, and put his case before him. I asked whether he would see that Mr. Dinnis was able to maintain his wife and child. But the Parliamentary Secretary, in his letter to me on 22nd January, merely confirmed that many students
may only be regarded as independent of their parents if they are over 25 years of age when they begin their studies or if they have supported themselves for at least three years out of their earnings. A married student who does not satisfy one or other of these conditions is not regarded as independent and no grants are payable on behalf of his wife or children. … We do our best to make clear to all students before they begin their training the conditions under which they receive assistance during their courses and there is nothing to prevent a student like Mr. Dinnis who does not qualify for independent status and grants for his wife and child from postponing entry to college until such time as he is able to meet the requirements.
That is an absolutely astonishing attitude of the Ministry to take at the very time when every independent body, every Government report, every Royal Commission and Committee is stressing the need for us to have rapid and immediate expansion in our educational provision. Only last week we had another one in the second report of the N.E.D.C. stressing the value of education as part of the policy of growth economically, let alone as part of the cultural life of the community.
We know that we are desperately short of teachers. That is the argument used by the Government as to why they cannot reduce the size of classes and make other improvements. Yet I am


solemnly told, when there is a capable and eligible young man in my constituency, who has been selected by the Charley Day Training College for a three-year training course, that he should be advised to give up his teacher's training and to do some other job for four years in the calm assumption that at the end of that time he will be willing to start again as a student, possibly with a reduction in his standard of life which that might entail. The Parliamentary Secretary surely does not for a moment believe that that is the answer to the problem of such people. I know that he does not believe it; he is far too intelligent and too interested in education to believe it. Such an attitude, in fact, indicates a remoteness by the Ministry from the realities of current social life.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will quote the Anderson Committee, but he cannot shelter behind that Committee, because the Government have carefully picked and chosen what they will take from that Committee's Report. They have accepted some recommendations and have not accepted others. I believe that the Anderson Committee recommended the abolition of means tests for students, but the Government turned that down. They used their own judgment in taking from the Anderson Committee's Report what they wanted. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give me that answer, because it is not an honest answer, as he knows.
The Government must take responsibility for a situation in which the Ministry say to a young man who is keen to take up teaching as a career, "If you want to qualify for independent status you must leave school early enough to support yourself for three years before taking up teacher training"—in other words, encouraging young men to leave school early, "or you must not marry while you are in training or you must not start training until you are over 25." None of these facts is compatible with the present situation or with a policy of the expansion of our teaching services.
We ought to be doing the opposite of all these things. We ought to encourage these students to stay at school before going into teacher-training. Surely we

should allow them to try another career first, if they want to do so, until they make up their minds that teaching is the vocation for them and the vocation for which they are most fitted and on which they are mast keen. Finally, we should recognise that today people marry very early. They marry as students. Certainly, many of them marry before they are 21. Therefore, we should not penalise them in any way for having married at that age. Many times from this side of the House we have pointed out the folly of such regulations as these. We have urged the Government to change it. The National Union of Students has made strong representations to us and, I believe, to the Ministry.
When I raised this matter at Question Time on 14th February the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would certainly undertake to look at the subject again. I hope that tonight he will say that he has done so and that good potential teaching material of this sort will no longer be discouraged in this way. It is not humane to face this young family with the choice of either the young mother having to go on struggling to bring up one child on less than £6 10s. a week, when travelling expenses are deducted, or being prevented from having more children because of the smallness of the income.
It is grossly inhumane to expect her to struggle on in this way or for her husband, who has set his heart on a teaching career, to have to give up that career because the Ministry insists that he must live like a single man. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me and Mr. Dinnis some hope tonight.

11.46 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I welcome this opportunity which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has offered tonight briefly to consider some of the implications of our present regulations as they concern grants to students at teacher training colleges.
I share the hon. Lady's enthusiasm to see as many students as possible coming into the teacher training colleges. She will know that my right hon. Friend is at the moment in the middle of an ex-


pansion of these colleges, an expansion that will, in the space of twelve years, effect a trebling of the numbers in training. At present there are more applications for teacher training colleges than we have places, but I entirely agree with her that we want to ensure that these colleges are as attractive to young people as we can make them; and we must treat most seriously a case such as that of Mr. Dinnis which she has drawn to the attention of the House.
I readily appreciate the anxiety and concern the hon. Lady feels for this couple and the situation in which they find themselves. It was never considered that the recently issued Awards Regulations should embody the Minister's final word on this subject. It was always the intention that these arrangements should be reconsidered at the end of one full year's experience.
Teacher training grants form part of the much wider system of grants and awards as a whole and the arrangements approved by the Minister in the main circular, No. 7/62, are closely linked with the Awards Regulations. They cannot, therefore, be dealt with in isolation. The arrangements, which were introduced with effect from September, 1962, represented a considerable improvement in students' grants and were estimated to cost an additional £5 million in the first year. It has become clear, both in the course of administering the arrangements and in the debate on the Awards Regulations which took place in November last year that the general level of grants is now fairly widely considered to be reasonably generous.
The criticisms have been on certain particular aspects of the arrangements as they affect limited groups of students, and the criticism that the hon. Lady makes tonight is clearly in that category. It is in just such cases that I hope the review we are to hold this autumn will be helpful. We have always considered that a general review of the new arrangements should be undertaken after they have been in operation for a complete year and we propose to do this in consultation with the local authority associations.
I informed the hon. Lady in the House that I would very carefully consider the narrow point she put to me then and which she has repeated tonight. This

has been given careful consideration. We cannot change the regulations in advance of the promised review, but I undertake that if this is considered by the local authority associations to be an amendment that is required in the light of the experience they have had we would be prepared very carefully to consider it.
Letters are, in fact, going out this week to all the local authority associations inviting comments and proposals about the working of the grant arrangements and suggesting a meeting later this year. Already, a number of points have been raised, which will be considered at that stage, and it may also, as I have said, be appropriate then to consider the situation of students who, though technically dependent on their parents, themselves have dependants.
May I briefly outline the present arrangements by which my right hon. Friend and the local education authorities are bound? Students attending training colleges receive free tuition and maintenance grants during each academic year. For resident students there are free board and lodgings during term time and a grant of £133; day students not living in their parents' home receive £355 in London and £325 elsewhere. These figures are directly related to the amounts payable to university students and take into account the longer training college year. They include various sums for necessary travel, books and equipment, and towards the cost of maintenance during vacations.
A parental contribution is payable on the basis of an income scale except in the case of independent students, who are, as the hon. Lady has reminded the House, those who are over the age of 25 on 31st August of the year in which they begin their course, or those who have regularly supported themselves out of their earnings for three years before that date, or thirdly, in the case of women students, those who are over 21 and were married before application for admission to a course of training.
Dependants' grants are payable to independent students thus defined, and there are a number of other grants, including grants for those who live in two homes, and additional grants to students over the age of 25, to which I need not draw attention tonight.
I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it is desirable to make regulations, and that this is not a matter that should be left to the totally free discretion of local education authorities because that means a difference in arrangements between the different areas, which probably is not acceptable. But if we have regulations, then, clearly, we have got to draw the line somewhere. It is quite apparent that for Mr. Dinnis the line is drawn in an unhappy place, but, wherever it is drawn, somebody is going to fall just outside. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will be prepared to concede at least that regulations of some kind are needed and that these regulations are by their very nature bound to cause anxiety to some.
This age limit of 25 which has been considered very carefully—it has been attacked from time to time in the House—is one of long standing. I do not shelter behind the Anderson Committee. Of course, it is the Government's responsibility. But the Anderson Committee, composed of people with experience, did consider this matter very carefully in 1960 and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to change this age of 25. The Standing Advisory Committee, in its review of grants, did not question it, nor did the local authority associations when the award regulations, circulars, and so on, were being discussed with them. It applies to all students except postgraduate students on courses of advanced studies who have been awarded State studentships or D.S.I.R. studentships. These are automatically accorded independent status.
If it were decided to lower the age limit for independent status, the most obvious age to adopt would be 21 and there have been a good many requests for this. I am not entirely sure whether even so large an alteration as that would help Mr. Dinnis. If the age were lowered to 21, the cost would be £½ million over the field of grants as a whole, about £350,000 of it in training colleges alone. It would, of course, benefit a comparatively small sector of the student population. It is questionable whether, if this additional money were available, it should be spent in this way.
A compromise solution, which has been put forward by a number of people,

would be to reduce the age limit to 23. This would cost only £150,000, but it would help an even smaller number of students and would almost certainly be followed by pressure to make a further reduction to 21. The qualifications for independent status below the age of 25 were slightly amended by the Anderson Committee and those amendments were accepted by the Government. Previously, a student who had supported himself for two years could qualify provided that he were over the age of 21. The Committee thought that the lower age limit should be removed, but that two years was an insufficient period, and substituted three years.
The dependants' grants are restricted to independent students. There is at least some clear logic in this, since one person can hardly be dependent on another who is himself dependent upon a third. It was argued in the debate on the awards regulations that grants for dependent wives and children should be payable to dependent students, but the Minister repeated the view, which had been advanced by a number of his predecessors, that a student should not, as it were, be able to marry during his course at the taxpayer's expense. One may argue about this. The Anderson Committee also considered that marriage in itself was not a ground for waiving the parental contribution.
As to students who marry after the beginning of their course, we have always made it clear to them beforehand that they cannot expect help from public funds. Hardship may, possibly, arise in cases where a student is already married and his wife is able to work but subsequently has to give up work when she is having a child. This may be the case in this instance.
Possibly, some discretionary power might be conferred upon authorities to pay a dependant's grant up to an agreed limit in cases of that kind where hardship is proved. This, also, is a point which will be considered in the course of the review to which I have referred. Alternatively, it might be argued that dependants' grants should be payable as soon as there is a dependant to be provided for whether or not the marriage takes place before the beginning of the course.
There may be merit in such proposals provided, perhaps, that dependants' grants continue to be tied to indepependent status. It is already the practice to pay wives' and children's grants to State students as soon as they reach the age of 25. It is estimated that the cost of this latter suggestion might be approximately £110,000. I hope that from what I have said, the hon. Lady will appreciate that there are quite substantial sums involved in any of these amendments, small as they may seem. Under the present regulations I cannot, therefore, I regret, hold out any hope of a dependant's grant for the hon. Lady's constituent at this moment.
All I can do is point, first, to one rather small discretionary power which is given to local education authorities and which enables them to pay to any student an extra grant of £2 a week for up to 12 weeks of the vacation period if he can show financial hardship. Secondly, I would repeat the assurance which I have given that these arrangements are to be the subject of a review, and that the points which the hon. Lady has made will be taken into careful consideration. If local education authorities have found that during the preceding twelve months the circular and the Regulations have proved defective either in this respect or in any way we shall be willing then to study very carefully their representations.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the promised review, and hoping that it will help to solve the particular problem I have brought to his attention, may I ask him whether, in the interim period, the local authorities could be authorised, and advised by the Minister that they are so authorised, to make discretionary payments of the kind he has mentioned in cases of hardship over a rather wider field?

Mr. Chataway: I am not able to give that undertaking to the hon. Lady. The grants which are at present payable and the powers given to local education authorities stem from regulations which are less than a year old. It was made clear at that time that they would have to run a year before they could be properly reviewed, and I think that that was a reasonable provision, because one can hardly judge how the regulations are likely to work in under twelve months, in which one has three terms and three whole vacations. I regret, therefore, that I think it unlikely that my right lion. Friend would be able to make any dispensation of that kind at this time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.